At the time the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, Act XLVI of 1952, came into force on the 28th July, 1952, certain proceedings were pending against the petitioner herein under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code before a Special Magistrate who had already framed charges against the petitioner and posted the case for further hearing to the 12th August, 1952. Under section 10 of Act XLVI of 1952, this case stood transferred to the Special Judge who at that time was the Sessions Judge of Coimbatore, who in his turn transferred the case to the Additional Sessions Judge for disposal. Subsequently the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge of Coimbatore (Sri S. Varadarajulu Naidu) having been appointed as a Special Judge, in virtue of the powers conferred under section 6 of the Act on 18th February, 1953, took up the case for hearing and proceeded with the examination of some witnesses when he was promoted and transferred from the station. When his successor Sri C. Rajabadar Odayar took up the enquiry, an application was made on behalf of the State that in view of some reported decisions of the High Court the enquiry should be re-commenced afresh consequent on the change of Judges. Thereupon notice was given to the accused-officer and after hearing his counsel the learned Special Judge passed an order on the 20th July, 1953, to the effect that the witnesses who had already been examined will be re-examined. Against that order of the learned Special Judge, this Criminal Revision Petition has been filed.

In order to appreciate the question of law raised, it would be advantageous to briefly trace the various provisions of Act XLVI of 1952. By section 3 of that Act a new section is enacted and inserted in the Indian Penal Code as section 165-A, the result of which introduction is that along with the principal offender, the abettor, who offers a bribe is also made liable. Section 4 of that Act deals with an amendment of section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is unnecessary to refer to the amendments carried out by section 5. Section 6 confers power on the State Government to appoint Special Judges. Sub-clauses (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of section 6 relate to offences for the trial of which such Special Judges can be appointed, among which are offences under sections 161, 165 and 165-A. Sub-section (2) of section 6 lays down that no person shall be qualified for appointment as a special Judge unless he is, or has been, a Sessions Judge or an additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. It is therefore clear that the Special Judge contemplated by the statute must have exercised the powers, of a Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge. Section 8 is the really important section to be construed in the present case. It runs thus:

“Procedure and powers of special judges.-(1) A special judge may take cognizance of offences without the accused being committed to him for trial, and in trying the accused persons, shall follow the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), for the trial of warrant cases by magistrates.

(2) A special judge may, with a view to obtaining the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in, or privy to, an offence, tender a pardon to such person on condition of his making a full and true disclosure of the whole circumstances within his knowledge relating to the offence and to every other person concerned, whether as principal or abettor, in the commission thereof; and any pardon so tendered shall, for the purposes of sections 339 and 339-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, be deemed to have been tendered under section 338 of that Code.

(3) Save as provided in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, shall so far as they are not inconsistent with this Act, apply to the proceedings before a special judge; and for t