JUDGMENT

GOSWAMI, J:— These appeals by certificate are from the common judgment of the Calcutta High Court of 28th May, 1975 disposing of three Criminal Misc. Revisions Nos. 304, 318 and 371 of 1975. There is a common question of law and will be disposed of by this judgment.

2. Briefly the facts are as follows:

A complaint was made against the accused by Shri J. F. C. Mc.Mohan. Dock Manager, Calcutta Port Commissioners, to the South Port Police Station alleging offences under Ss. 120-B/420/379/466/468/471, I. P. C. against several accused including the appellants who happened to be public servants at the material time. The State Government issued a Notification No. 3165-J on 8-4-1970 under S. 4 of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) allotting the said case for trial to the Third Additional Special Court, Calcutta constituted under the provisions of the said Act for trial of the offences mentioned in the Schedule to that Act. There is no dispute aboute the particular order of allotment of the case to the Special Court under the said Act. Following the Notification of April 8, 1970 the State of West Bengal through Ranajit Roy, sub-Inspector of Police, filed a complaint before the Third Additional Special Court. Calcutta on 11-9-1970 detailing all the allegations against the accused and indicating the material facts that transpired in the course of the investigation of the case. The Special Court Judge after perusal of the complaint and hearing the Public Prosecutor took congizance of the case under Sections 409/109 and 409/34, I. P. C. which are offences mentioned in the schedule of the Act. The learned Judge thereupon issued processes against the appellants and other accused. In due course trial commenced. The prosecution after examining 70 witnesses closed its case on May 2, 1974. The Court framed charges against four accused including the appellants and discharged the remaining two accused by a lengthy order with reasons on 26-2-75. Charges were framed under various sections including Ss. 409 and 420 read with S. 120-B, I. P. C.

3. The appellants moved the Calcutta High Court in revision for quashing the trial on March 25, 1975. The High Court allowed the petition on 28th of May, 1975 and granted certificate to appeal to this Court under Article 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution on March 26, 1976. Hence these apeals.

4. The High Court accepted the contentions of the appellants that no legal and valid cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Judge, Special Court and, therefore, the entire proceedings became vitiated and hence were quashed. The High Court in disposing of the matter in this way followed two earlier Division Bench decision of the Said Court in Sudhir Chandra Bhattacharjee v. The State. Criminal Appeals Nos. 23 to 26 of 1961 decided on 29th March, 1967 (Cal) and Shyama Saran Das Gupta v. The State, (Criminal Appeal No. 434 of 1967) decided on 11th April, 1975 (Cal).

5. The question that falls for decision in these appeals relates to the cognizance of the offences by the Special Judge under the Act. As the Preamble shows the Act provides for the more speedy trial and more effective punishment of certain offences specified in the schedule thereto. S. 4 (1) of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 or in any other law, the offences specified in the schedule shall be triable by Special Courts only: Provided that when trying any case a Special Court may also try any offence other than an offence specified in the schedule, with which the accused may under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, be charged with the same trial. There is, however, no dispute that the offences charged are exclusively triable by the Special Court.

6. Section 5 of the Act which is material for our purpose may be read:

"A Special Court may take cognizance of offences, in the manner laid down in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-s. (1