JUDGMENT :

1. The present proceedings arise out of a complaint filed by one Ramadas Shrinivas Nayak in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge and Senior Special Judge in Bombay for offences under Sections 161, 165, 420 and 483 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The learned Special Judge His Honor Shri Bhutta took cognisance and issued process against the accused. The case was registered as Special Case No. 24/82. All the offences were alleged to have been committed by the accused during the time when he was the Chief Minister of Maharashtra. Prior to the filing of the complaint the Governor of Maharashtra had sanctioned the prosecution of the accused for some of the offences alleged in the complaint but in view of the fact that before 9th August, 1982 the accused has resigned his office the necessity for obtaining any sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act did not arise. The complaint therefore included some offences for which the Governor had not granted a sanction. No sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act was necessary for offences of cheating and extortion.

2. When the accused appeared before the learned Special Judge he objected to the jurisdiction of the learned Judge on the ground that the case had not been properly allocated to him by the State Government. His Honor Judge Bhutta after hearing the parties decided that the case was validly before him and he had properly taken cognizance. The order of the learned Judge was based upon a construction of the existing orders of allotment of work which were in force at that time.

3. Against the order of the learned Special Judge rejecting the accused’s contention the accused filed a revisional application in the High Court of Bombay being Criminal Revision Application No. 510 of 1982. During the pendency of the said revisional application the Government of Maharashtra issued a notification dated 16-1-1983 appointing His Honor Judge Shri R.B. Sule as Judge for Special Case No. 24/82. The accused thereafter did not raise any further objections in the High Court against cognizance by Shri Bhutta. His other objections were, however, dismissed by the High Court by its judgment and order dated 7th March, 1983.

4. Against the order of the Bombay High Court the accused appealed by leave under Article 136 of the Constitution to this 'Honble Court. In that appeal only one point was argued, viz. that a private complaint in respect of offences covered by Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not competent. No other point was argued. The said appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 247/83 was dismissed by this Honble Court by its judgment dated 16th February, 1984, reported in (1984) 2 S.C.R. 914. The last paragraph of this judgment at page 954 reads as under :

"Having examined the matter from all the different angles, we are satisfied that the conclusion reached both by the learned special Judge and Division Bench of the Bombay High Court that a private complaint filed by the complainant was clearly maintainable and that the cognisance was properly taken, is correct. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is dismissed."

It is clear that only one point was urged and disposed of.

5. This judgment precludes any argument about the validity of the cognisance taken by His Honor Judge Bhutta on the 9th of August, 1982. The Supreme Court has affirmed the order of the learned Special Judge and it is not open to the accused to go behind that order.

6. The case proceeded further before His Honor Special Judge Sule, the successor Judge and the learned Judge passed an order of discharge on 25th July, 1983. That order itself had been set aside by the Constitution Bench of this Honble Court on 16th February, 1984. The order of taking cognisance has thus become final and cannot be reagitated. Moreover Section 460 (e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure expressly provides that if any Magistrate not empowered by law to take cognisance of an offenc