I. A. ANSARI, J.

Where do we draw the discernible line between the jurisdiction under Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, what are the modes of taking cognizance, when can a Court is said to have taken cognizance and what are the factors which govern the taking of cognizance, are some of the questions which this writ petition raises. Yet another question of immense importance, which the present writ petition has raised, is: Without taking cognizance of any offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, whether a special Judge, appointed under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has the jurisdiction to take cognizance of any offence under the Indian Penal Code and/or under a special law, other than the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? The answer to the queries, posed above, would decide the fate of the petitioner?s further detention in custody.

2. This writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has put to challenge the order, dated 11.09.2013, and orders passed subsequent thereto, in Special Case No. 32 of 2013, arising out of Shastrinagar Police Station Case No. 213 of 2013, by learned Special Judge, Vigilance-I, Patna, taking cognizance of offences under Sections 384, 353, 406, 420, 467, 468, 469 and 471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 10 of Bihar Conduct of Examination Act, 1981, coupled with Sections 25 (1-B) A, 26 and 30 of the Arms Act, 1959, and further under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, seeking issuance of a writ, in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order, dated 11.09.2013, and orders passed subsequent thereto, and in, consequence thereof, seeking issuance of a writ, in the nature of habeas corpus, directing release of the accused-petitioner from custody forthwith.

3. We have heard Mr. Khursid Alam, learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner, and Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents. We have also heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned Advocate as Amicus Curiae.

BACKGROUND FACTS :

4. The material facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, may, in brief, be set out as under:

(i) Following registration of Shastrinagar Police Station Case No. 213 of 2013, on 15.06.2013, under Sections 384, 353, 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 10 of Bihar Conduct of Examination Act, 1981, under Section 25 (1-B) A of the Arms Act, 1959, and under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the accused-petitioner was arrested on 15.06.2013 and, on his production, on 16.06.2013, before the learned Special Judge, Vigilance-I, Patna, constituted under Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, learned Special Judge passed an order, on 16.06.2013, itself, remanding the accused-petitioner to custody. While fortnightly remand of the accused-petitioner continued from time to time, a charge sheet was laid, on 11.09.2013, alleging commission of offences by accused-petitioner under Sections 384, 353, 406, 420, 467, 468, 469 and 471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, under Sections 7 read with 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, under Section 10 of the Bihar Conduct of Examination Act, 1981, and under Sections 25 (1-B) A, 26 and 30 of the Arms Act, 1959.

(ii) On the very day of submission of charge sheet (i.e. on 11.09.2013), learned special Judge, passed an order taking cognizance of offences, inter alia, under Sections 384, 353, 406, 420, 467, 468, 469 and 471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, under Sections 7 read with 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, under Section 10 of Bihar Conduct of Examination Act, 1981, and under Sections 25 (1-B) A, 26 and 30 of the Arms Act, 1959.

(iii) Whi