This matter has come before us on a reference made by a learned single Judge.

2. The Chief Manager, Allahabad Bank lodged an FIR against the petitioners and some others on 25-2- 1994 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, at P. S. Phneelkhana, Kanpur Nagar. The case was investigated by CBI and a charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of Special Judge (Anti-Corruption) Central U. P. , Lucknow. At the stage of framing of the charge, the petitioners moved an application on 28-9-1999 for summoning certain documents, which was rejected by the Special Judge by the order dated 17-4-2001. A second application moved for similar purpose on 19-5-2001 was also rejected on 17-8-2001. The present petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed for quashing of the order dated 17-8-2001 and for issuing a direction to the Special Judge to summon the documents mentioned in the application moved by the petitioners.

3. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has been constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The State Government in exercise of power conferred by Section 178 of Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898) issued a notification on 5-10-1951 directing that all Special Police Establishment cases committed to the Court of Session in any District in U. P. shall be tried in Lucknow Sessions Division. Exercising power under Sections 193 (2) of the same Code, it was further directed that the Sessions Judge, Lucknow, as Additional Sessions Judge of other Sessions Division in U. P. shall try such cases. The first part of Section 178 of 1898 Code is similar to the part first of Section 185 of 1973 Code. Section 193 (2) of 1898 Code provided that Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges shall try only such cases as the State Government may by general or special order direct them to try or as the Sessions Judge of the division by general or special order may make over to them for trial.

Subsequently, another notification was issued whereunder more Courts of Special Judges were created for trial of cases wherein charge-sheets had been submitted by the Special Police Establishment (CBI) under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. It is in these circumstances that the charge-sheet in the present case has been submitted before the Special Judge (Anti-corruption), Lucknow, though the offence was committed in Kanpur Nagar.

4. When the petition was taken up for admission hearing an objection was raised on behalf of the CBI (respondent No. 2) that as the petitioners seek quashing of order passed by a criminal Court (Sessions Judge) at Lucknow, the petition could not be entertained by the principal seat of the High Court at Allahabad. The petitioners on the authority of a decision by a single Judge of this Court in Maya Shankar Pandey v. State of U. P. , 1997 JIC 727 (All) ; 1997 ACC 871, urged that the petition was maintainable at Allahabad as the offence had been committed in Kanpur Nagar. Doubting the correctness of the said decision the learned single Judge referred the following question for decision by a larger Bench:

"whether the territorial jurisdiction of the appellate and revisional Court is to be determined under the Cr. P. C. by the location of the Court which has passed the impugned order or by the place where the offence was committed ?"

5. As mentioned earlier, the offence for which the petitioners are being prosecuted was committed in Kanpur Nagar, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the principal seat of the High Court at Allahabad, but they are being tried in the Court of Special Judge (Anti-corruption), Lucknow, and seek quashing of an order passed by the said Court which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The question has, therefore, to be answered in the light of the United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 (hereinaf