JUDGMENT - Chagla, C.J.

1. References Nos. 7 to 17 have been made to us by the learned Additional Special Judge, Poona, and the learned Additional Special Judge has taken the view in these references that the order of the learned Magistrate holding that he had no jurisdiction to try a case where a public servant was charged under Section 409, Penal Code, was not a proper order and it should be set aside and the case should be referred back to the learned Magistrate for trial. We have also a reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thana, where he has taken the view that a committal order passed by the Magistrate is without jurisdiction and it should be quashed inasmuch as the Magistrate has dealt with a case against a public servant under Section 409 when he had no jurisdiction to do so.

2. The question that arises on these references is whether in view of Act 2 of 1947, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 46 of 1952, it is open to the State to prosecute a public servant under Section 409 according to the procedure laid down in the Criminal Procedure Code, or whether the prosecution can only be instituted and conducted in the ma

Click Here to Read the rest of this document