Bapna, J. - (1.) ON certain information received by the police that Mr. Bansilal Loharia in his capacity as Chairman of the District Board, Jaipur,had committed certain acts which made him liable to prosecution under sec. 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Government of Rajasthan passed an order No. F. 1 (130) LJ/b/57, dated 12th August, 1957, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sec. (2) of sec. 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, (Act No. XLVI of 1952), specifying the Additional Session Judge, Jaipur City (appointed as Special Judge by Notification No. F. 2 (9) Jud/52 dated 26. 8. 1952 to be Special Judge for the trial of cases against Shri Bansilal Loharia under sec. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Shri Kuber Dan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, C. I. D. , Jaipur, thereafter lodged a complaint under Sec. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against Shri Bansilal Loharia, and of abetment of the offence under sec. 5 (2) of the said Act against Shri Sumatimal Jain. The Additional Sessions Judge framed a charge on 21st September, 1957, against, Mr. Bansilal Loharia as also against Mr. Sumatimal Jain. Both pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the gravemen of the charge was that Mr. Bansilal Loharia while acting as Chairman of the District Board, Jaipur, by corrupt and illegal means of otherwise abusing his position as such public servant committed various acts of criminal misconduct prejudicial to the interests of the Board by manipulating investment of the District Board Funds by transferring them from fixed deposits to call deposits and from one bank to another on less favourable terms and derived illegal pecuniary advantage there from for himself to which he was not entitled, and that on or about 23rd December, 1954, obtained with the help of accused Sumatimal Jain an illegal gratification in the shape of brokerage commission amounting to Rs. 125/-in respect of one District Board Fixed Deposit of the face value of Rs. 1 lakh lying with Bikaner Bank, Jaipur, by converting it from fixed deposit to call deposit on less favourable terms. The charge framed by the court was under sec. 162 of the Indian Penal Code and sec. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On 10th September, 1957, an application was moved by one Chandra Shekhar Parashar that Shri I. S. Anand, Deputy General Manager, Bank of Bikaner, Shri Vedya Raj, Asstt. Manager and Shri M. D. Hedge, Chief Accountant, were the persons who offered and paid the illegal gratification for obtaining pecuniary advantage for the bank, and were guilty under sec. 165 A of the Indian Penal Code as also under sec. 109 of that Code read with sec. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the prayer was that these three persons be impleaded as co-accused in the case pending against Mr. Bansilal Loharia, and should be called upon to stand their trial for the said offences. The application was opposed by the Assistant Government Advocate, who was conducting the case against Mr. Bansilal Loharia. It was urged that Mr. Chandra Shekhar Parashar was in collusion with Mr. Loharia, and the real intention was that these three persons, who were cited as witnesses against Mr. Loharia should be prevented from giving evidence by being proceeded against as accused in the same case. On behalf of Mr. Bansi Lal Loharia and Mr. Sumatimal Jain support was given to the application by Chandra Shekhar Parashar. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that he had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence against the three officials of the Bikaner Bank, and to join them as co-accused in the case. He accordingly dismissed the application by order dated 19th September, 1957. Shri Chandra Shekhar Parashar has filed this revision petition. The allegation against Mr. I. S. Anand. Mr. Vedyaraj and Mr. Hedge was under sec. 165-A of Indian Penal Code, which by virtue of sec 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is a cognizable offence. There is no doubt that any person conversant with the occurrence of a cognizable offence can bring it to the notice of a court, and it is left to court to take cognizance or otherwise according to the jurisdiction or merits of the case. Under sec. 7 (l)of the Criminal Law Amendment Act an offence under sec. 165. A or under sec. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act can only be tried by a Special Judge. Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act is as follows: - "every offence specified in sub-sec. (1) of sec. 6 shall be tried by the special Judge for the area within which it was committed, or where there are more Special Judges than one for such area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the State Government. " It is said that this offence was committed in Jaipur City. By Government notification of 1952 all Sessions Judges and Additional Sessions Judges were appointed as Special Judges with jurisdiction over their respective area. For Jaipur City, therefore, there were two Special Judges, (l)Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, and (2) Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City. When there are two Special Judges for the same area, sub-sec. (2) of sec. 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act comes in to play, and specification has to be made by the State Government as to which of the two Special Judges is to try the offence. This specification can be made by allocating different classes of offences or persons, or, as has been done in some cases, by reference to the agency by which the investigation is made. In the present case the Additional Sessions Judge was authorised to try the cases against Mr. Bansilal Loharia under sec. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The motion made by Mr. Chandra Shekhar Parashar is that the three persons named by him in his petition should be tried for offence under sec. 165a or sec. 109 I. P. C. read with sec. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. This request is outside the Government order of 12th August, 1957, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was, therefore, right in holding that jurisdiction had not been conferred upon him by the Government to try the alleged offence against the aforesaid three persons. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the name of Sumati Mal Jain was not mentioned in the Government order of 12th August, 1957, but nevertheless he was being tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is not clear how the learned Additional Sessions Judge got jurisdiction to try the case against Mr. Sumati Mal Jain, but that will be a question which will have to be decided when the matter is agitated in this Court. On the present material, I agree with the learned Additional Sessions Judge that he had no jurisdiction to proceed to try the alleged offence against Shri I. S. Anand, Shri Vedyaraj and Shri Hedge. The revision is accordingly dismissed. . ;