- (1.) PALOK Basu, J. Salyendra Babu Ag nihotri has filed this petition which pur ports to be under Section 482 Cr. P. C. containing the following prayer: "the proceedings of the criminal case No. 10 of 1998, R. C. 32 (A)/96, Lucknow under Sections 120- B/420/467/468/471, I. P. C and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (2), 13 (1) (d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 pending in the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (West) U. P. Lucknow be quashed and non- bailable warrant issued against the applicant be also quashed. "
(2.) SRI Nandit SRIvastava, learned counsel for the applicant has been heard at length who has argued the matter with ability. In opposition Shri Vireshwar Naths Government Advocate assisted by Shri A. K. SRIvastava, Special Counsel for C. B. I. , has been heard. In order to appreciate the argu ments only two facts need to be stated. First, in one of the Government depart ments known as Ayurveda and Unani Department under the Medical and Health Ministry of the State of U. P. there was alleged embezzlement by withdrawing excess amount without there being any budgetary allotment in the year 1993-94 which tentatively has been estimated by the audit report to be of about Rs. 48 crores. Second, the matter was made sub ject matter of an F. I. R. lodged by Yash-verdhan Sinha, (a Secretary in that depart ment) which was lodged at P. S. Kotwali Hazratganj, Lucknow which covered the entire gamut of the embezzlement/illegal withdrawals. Having noticed this huge em bezzlement through a writ petition and further that the matter's importance was being apparently ignored, the State Government was asked by this Court as to why the matter should not be investigated by the C. B. I. Thereafter, by a notification of Lie State Government the entire inves tigation has been handed over to the C. B. I. After due investigation the parent or the principal charge-sheet in this case has been filed being numbered as 1 of 1997 in the Court of Special Judge (Centre), Luck-now. This has been followed by several supplementary charge-sheets relating to various accused posted differently at dif ferent places. One such supplementary charge-sheet making the applicant also an accused, is the subject matter of this 482 application. The applicant Satyendra Babu Ag nihotri alleges to have been in the employ ment of the State Government, having been posted as Regional Ayurvedic and Unani Officer, Lucknow in the year 1993 and set averments in para 8of the petition.
(3.) IN the State of U. P. , the State Government has admittedly appointed three Special Judges in the State of U. P. The territorial jurisdiction of those three Judges has been notified by relevant notifications of the State Government as under: (1) Special Judge (Centre), Lucknow having jurisdiction for districts Lucknow, Kanpur City and Kanpur Dehat. (2) Special Judge (West), Lucknow having territorial jurisdiction over 37 districts. (3) Special Judge (East), Dehradun having territorial jurisdiction over the remaining districts of the State of U. P. The applicant moved an applica tion challenging the aforesaid supplemen tary charge-sheet making hinfalso an ac cused, on the following three grounds: (i) Cognizance cannot be taken by the Special Judge (West), Lucknow because cog nizance could have been taken only by the Spe cial Judge (Centre), Lucknow. (ii) The District Judge, Lucknow had no power to transfer the case No. 1 of 1997 from the Court of Special Judge (Centre), Lucknow to the Court of Special Judge (West), Lucknow. (iii) The applicant could not have been proceeded with through the instant charge-sheet which should be taken by an independent charge-sheet and not a supplementary charge-sheet.;