( 1 ) THIS in an application in revision filed on behalf of Sri Hari Das Mundhra against an order of the courts below rejecting his application challenging the validity of the trial and the investigation.

( 2 ) SRI Hari Das Mundhra was the Chairman of the British India Corporation Limited, Kanpur, which is a joint stock company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. He is being prosecuted under Sections 420, 471 and 467. P. C. , in the court of Sri Maharaj Singh who has been appointed a Special Magistrate. His substantive designation is Additional District magistrate of Lucknow.

( 3 ) SRI W. H. J. Christi was the Managing Director of the aforesaid Corporation. He lodged a report on 21-12-1957 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police who had been appointed under the delhi Special Police Establishment Act (Act No. XXV of 1946 ). One Sri Gurdas Mal was the deputy Superintendent of Police under the aforesaid Act and he filed a charge-sheet on 22-3-1958 under Sections 420, 467 and 471,. P. C. , in the Court of Sri Maharaj Singh in respect of offences alleged to have been committed by the applicant at Kanpur in connection with the aforesaid Corporation. When the inquiry started, an application was made by the applicant in the Court of Sri Maharaj singh Special Magistrate challenging his jurisdiction inter alia, on the ground that the Special police Establishment had no power to investigate the case against the applicant, that the charge-sheet was not in accordance with law and the Court was not competent to take cognizance, that the appointment of Sri Maharaj Singh as a Special Magistrate to hold the inquiry against the applicant was illegal and ultra vires and was a deviation from the usual procedure, that the facts, if at all, disclosed a breach of the provisions of the Indian Companies Act and cognizance could not be taken by the Criminal courts and that on the facts disclosed no criminal offence had been made out and that the case was of a civil nature. The objections were repelled by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 3-6-1958.

( 4 ) THE applicant went up in revision against that order and before the Sessions Judge the pleas taken before the Magistrate were reiterated and it was contended that the whole inquiry was illegal.

( 5 ) THE grounds which were considered by the Sessions Judge, inter alia, were whether the investigation by the Special Police Establishment was valid, whether the Special Police establishment Act, 1946 and its subsequent amendment were applicable to the State of Uttar pradesh and whether the appointment of the Special Magistrate was ultra vires of the constitution.

( 6 ) I have confined myself to the aforesaid three grounds only because the learned Counsel for the applicant had confined his arguments to these points alone and other points were not urged before me.

( 7 ) ALL the above three grounds were decided against the applicant and hence this application in revision.

( 8 ) THE first point argued by the learned counsel for the applicant was that the investigation by Sri gurdas Mal, Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Branch, was not legal and the report lodged by him before the Special Magistrate was also not in accordance with law.

( 9 ) THIS ground needs consideration of certain sections of the Delhi Special Police Establishment act.

( 10 ) ORIGINALLY, as the Preamble shows, the Act was for the constitution of a special police force for the Chief Commissioners Province of Delhi for the purpose of investigation of certain offences committed in connection with matters concerning Departments of the Central government, for the Superintendence and administration of the said force and for the extension to other areas in British India of the powers and jurisdiction of members of the said force in regard to the investigation of the said offences. Section 2 provides the Constitution and powers of the Special Police Establishment with which I a