P. Ubaid, J.

1. The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 14 of 2009 of the Special Court (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam, involving the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PC' Act), and also the offences under Sections 120B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence under Section 120B of IPC is seen alleged against all the four accused. The accused Nos. 1 to 3 are public servants and the 4th accused is a non-public servant. Some vicious act, involving monetary elements amounting to misconduct as defined under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act in the matter of a bank loan transaction, is the subject matter of the prosecution. The 4th accused is the person to whom loan was sanctioned. The accused Nos. 1 to 3 are respectively the Chief Manager, the Manager and the Senior Manager of the Indian Overseas Bank, MG Road Branch. After thorough investigation, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) submitted final report in the court below against four accused after obtaining necessary sanction to prosecute the accused Nos. 1 to 3, under Section 19 of the PC Act. Pending the prosecution, the said prosecution sanction was quashed by this Court as per the judgment dated 11.11.2014 in W.P.(C) No. 1329 of 2010. In such a circumstance, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 filed separate applications seeking discharge and termination of proceedings. C.M.P. No. 355 of 2015 was filed by the first accused, C.M.P. No. 354 of 2015 was filed by the second accused, and C.M.P. No. 190 of 2015 was filed by the third accused. After hearing both sides, the learned Trial Judge found that the whole prosecution cannot be terminated, and the accused cannot be let free when the offences under Sections 120B and 420 of IPC are also alleged against the accused. The learned Trial Judge found that only as regards the offence alleged under the PC Act, the prosecution proceedings will come to an end, or will stand terminated in view of the judgment of the High Court quashing the prosecution sanction, but the prosecution will have to proceed as regards the other IPC offences, which will have to be tried by the competent Judicial First Class Magistrate Court. Accordingly, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the three applications filed by the accused, without deciding on the plea for discharge, and ordered the case to be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam, for trial in accordance with law, as per the common order dated 9.10.2015. The said order is under challenge in this proceeding brought under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the accused Nos. 1 and 2. It appears that the third accused has not challenged the order.

2. The prayer in this Crl.M.C. is to quash the said order of the trial court, and also to terminate the further proceedings, including the prosecution ordered to be pursued in the court of the learned Magistrate.

3. The petitioners have raised a legal question in this matter, that when the prosecution sanction is set aside, and the Special Court has lost jurisdiction to try the offence alleged under the PC Act, it is a matter of total loss of jurisdiction. Their contention is that the court below grievously erred in sending the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam, for trial in accordance with the law, and that instead, the court below should have terminated the whole proceedings, and let the accused free.

4. Let me see what procedure is possible in a case like this when the prosecution sanction granted under Section 19 of the PC Act is quashed by the High Court. Section 3 of the PC Act provides that the Central Government or the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint as many Special Judges as may be necessary for such area or areas, or for such case or group of cases, as may be specified in the notification, to try any offence punishable under the PC Act, and any conspiracy to commit, or any att