A Special Judge appointed under the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1949, lacks the jurisdiction to take cognizance of offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Only a Special Judge appointed under Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, can try offenses under the said Act.

N.K. Bhattacharyya, J.

By these 4 revisions the accused has challenged the order of taking cognizance passed by the learned Judge, Calcutta, 3rd Special Court, by order No. 1 dated 27.6.94 in 4 cases, namely Case No. 9 to Case No. 12 of 1994.

2. Accordingly, 4 revision cases have been moved challenging order No. 1 dated 27.6.94 passed by the learned Judge, Calcutta, 3rd Special Court, in those 4 cases and as the 4 revision cases being Criminal Revision Case Nos. 455 to 458 of 1995, invoke the similar question of law, these 4 cases have been taken up together and disposed of by this judgment.

3. The short fact leading to the cases are that on the ground of criminal breach of trust by the petitioner in disbursing the salary of the staff of Home Department for the period from March, 1987 to September, 1990 involving an amount of Rs. 1,21,372.19 and for the month of August, 1990 regarding discrepancy of an amount of Rs. 5,625.10, four FIR were lodged and the matters were assigned or referred to by the Government to the Court of Judge, 3rd Special Court, Calcutta and 4 cases have been registered in the said Court being Case Nos. 9 to 12 of 1994 and in the said 4 cases by Order No. 1, dated 27.6.94 the learned Special Judge took cognizance in the said four cases upon the charge-sheet submitted for an offence under s. 409 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons. The said order of taking cognizance is the subject matter of challenge in the four revision cases.

On a common ground the order of taking cognizance in the said four cases by the learned Judge, has been challenged.

4. According to Mr. Sanyal, the Special Judge being appointed by notification under s. 2 of West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1949 for trying the offences mentioned in that Act is not competent to try the offence or to take cognizance under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which Act came into force in the year, 1988.

5. It was contended that the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952, a Central Act, came into force and s. 6 of that Act provided for appointment of Special Judge for trying the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

6. By introduction of s. 13 in the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1949 there was virtual exclusion of application of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952 and that had prevented the application of the said Act in West Bengal. So no Judge was appointed under s. 6 of 1952 Act and the old appointment of the Judges of the Special Court by notification under s. 2 of the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1949 continued.

7. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 a Central Act, came into force in 1988. By that Act and particularly under s. 13 of that Act the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952, stood repealed.

8. A conjoint reading of Ss. 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 clearly indicates that an offence punishable under the Act, 1988 can be tried only by a Special Judge appointed under s. 3 of the said Act and not by any other Court, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force.

9. Section 26 of 1988 Act protects the appointment of Special Judges who were earlier appointed as Special Judges under s. 6 of the 1952 Act.

That protection has not been extended to the appointment of Special Judges appointed by a notification under s. 2 of the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1949.

10. Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 clearly expressed that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure or in any other law for the time being in force the offences under the said Act shall be tried by Special Judges only and the term Special Judges is in reference of s. 4 of 1988 Act, meaning the Special Judges who have been appointment under s. 3 of that Act or whose appointment under the repealed Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952 has been protected under s. 26 of the 1988 Act.

11. It has further been contended that s. 8 of the Gene