Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. raises a crucial question about the jurisdiction of Sri Atul Kumar Gupta presiding over the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, C.B.I. to proceed to try Special Case No.15 of 2013 and to quash the order dated 28.2.2015 passed by him. It may be placed on record that the impugned order dated 28.2.2015 in turn refers to the order passed by the learned Judge on 11.8.2014 in other cases relating to the same scam on the same issue of jurisdiction whereby it has been held that the court presided over by the aforesaid officer continues to have jurisdiction to try all NRHM cases in the entire State of U.P. The Special Judge has also referred to the judgment of this Court dated 23.9.2013 in Case No.33050 of 2013 to try cases of this class in relation to the jurisdiction enjoyed by him and accordingly has distinguished the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel in the decision of the Apex Court, State Vs. Jitender Kumar Singh, 2014 (11) SCC Page 724, which has been heavily and extensively relied upon by Sri Gopal Chaturvedi while arguing this application.

2. Thus, the issue is of the jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge who is proceeding with the case where the argument of Sri Gopal Chaturvedi is primarily two fold. Firstly that the Court does not have territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter in view of the notification of the State Government dated 29.5.2014. The contention is that the said notification clearly specifies the area and the jurisdiction to try special cases that only relates to cases of the Prevention of Corruption Act that fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the areas referred to in column-4 of the said notification. The submission is that the present case does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction so prescribed in the notification as it relates to Lucknow and which is not the territorial area of the learned Judge.

3. The second ground on which his jurisdiction is being challenged is that the government servant who was involved in the present case, Late Sri G.K. Batra, died on 16.8.2012. In the circumstances, the government servant who was accused had died even prior to the court having taken cognizance. Cognizance was taken on 5.12.2014. Sri Gopal Chaturvedi contends that since the government servant had died, there was nothing so as to enable the court concerned to try a case of the Prevention of Corruption Act as the petitioner-company is not a government servant. He also contends that the cognizance which has been taken spells out conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC but only in relation to the offences of Sections 409 and 420 IPC and not in relation to the offences under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He, therefore, submits that any trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act as against the petitioner-company is neither contemplated nor can it be undertaken by the learned Special Judge who otherwise also does not have jurisdiction in the matter. Sri Gopal Chaturvedi contends that on account of the death of the government servant the judgment in the case of State Vs. Jitender Kumar Singh (supra) squarely applies on the facts of the present case where also a similar situation existed and the Apex Court was pleased to hold that since no Prevention of Corruption offences had been committed by any of the non-public servants, there was no occasion for the Special Judge to try any such case relating to the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The sum and substance of the argument, therefore, is that offences under the IPC should be tried by the regular courts and not by the learned Special Judge who does not have any jurisdiction left to try the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act against the applicant.

4. Sri Chaturvedi then contends that no element of co