Banerjee, J. - (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)A short but an interesting question of law falls for consideration in this appeal against the order of the High Court of Karnataka, wherein the High Court dismissed the petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing of the proceedings pending before the Principal Sessions Judge, Belgaum in Special Case No. 22/94 : the question of law noticed above pertains to whether issuance of a notification under Section 26 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, appointing the Special Judge for any specified area to try offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 would also hold good for the purpose of Section 3 of the Act of 1988 (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) as well
(3.)Adverting to the factual score briefly at this juncture it appears that the appellant being charge-sheeted by the respondent-Authorities was prosecuted in the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Belgaum in Special Case No. 22/94 for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The factual score further depicts that during the pendency of the proceedings the appellant filed an application under Sections 3, 4 and 17 of the Act of 1988 read with Sections 173, 190 and 216 of the Cr.P.C. praying therein to discharge him, on the ground that the learned trial Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the case against him since the appointment of the learned Judge cannot be termed or said to be an appointment as a Special Judge within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act of 1988. It was further contended that in any event the investigating officer who filed the charge-sheet, was not duly authorised under Section 17 to investigate into the matter. The learned trial Judge however rejected the petition.