JUDGEMENT SOMNATH IYER, J. :- In respect of an offence stated to have been committed by the petitioner before us who was a clerk in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate-, First Class, Second Court, Bijapur, a charge sheet was placed against him in the Court of the Special Judge, Bijapur. That Special Judge was Mr. A.J. Sequeira, who was then the Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwar and who was appointed as a Special Judge by a Notification issued under S. 6(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952. When that Special Judge proposed to proceed with the trial of the case, an objection was raised before him by the petitioner that since the investigation into the offence had not been made in accordance with the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, the trial could not proceed. That objection was overruled whereupon the petitioner presented Criminal Revn. Petn. No. 303 of 1658 to this Court in which this Court made an order that since the investigation into the offence was not preceded by an order made under S. 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and there was a transgression of a plainly peremptory provision of that Act, the Special Judge could not proceed with the trial. This Court directed that there should be a re-investigation in accordance with law. 2. When that order of this Court went to that Special Judge, he made an order which leads: "In view of this Order of the High Court, this case stands disposed". Thereafter, a charge-sheet was placed in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur. It was asserted on behalf of the prosecution that a reinvestigation according to law had been made before that charge-sheet was placed; but, that any such investigation was made according to law is what is stoutly denied by the petitioner in this Writ Petition. However, that may be, what was contended before that Additional Sessions Judge was that he could not proceed with the trial since he was not the Special Judge appointed for that purpose. 3. In order to understand this contention it would be necessary to refer to the material facts leading to the appointment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur as a Special Judge under the provisions of Section 6(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952. Section 6(1) of that Act reads : "6. Power to appoint Special Judges. 3. In order to understand this contention it would be necessary to refer to the material facts leading to the appointment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur as a Special Judge under the provisions of Section 6(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952. Section 6(1) of that Act reads : "6. Power to appoint Special Judges. (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint as may Special Judges as may be necessary for such area or areas as may be specified in the notification to try the following offences namely : (a) An offence punishable under Section 161, (Section 162, Section 164) Section 165 or Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code or Sub-Section (2) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 : (b) ... … … … (2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Special Judge under this Act unless he is, or has been a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898." Under the provisions of this Section the State Government did appoint more than one Special Judge for the district of Bijapur. By a notification of December 28, 1957, Mr. J.M. Sequeira, who was the District and Sessions Judge. Bijapur, was appointed as a Special Judge for that district to try the offences specified in Section 6(1)(a) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Then again, by a notification of January 25,1958, Mr. J.A. Sequeira, Assistant Judge and Additional Sessions fudge, Dharwar, was appointed as Additional Special Judge for the District of Bijapur to try the offences specified in Section 8(1)(a) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. He was also empowered by that notification to try the offence with which the petitioner before us had been by then charged. 4. It was in consequence of the appointment of, Mr. J.A. Sequeira as the Additional Special Judge by the second notification referred to above that he proposed to go on with the trial of the case in the first instance, and, it was then that this Court in the Criminal Revision Petition referred to above pointed out that he could not proceed with that trial since that trial had not been preceded by an investigation in the manner required by Section 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The order that the case had been disposed of was also the order which was made by Mr. J.A. Sequeira. 5. It is not disputed that the Additional Sessions Judge of Bijapur in whose Court the prosecution against the petitioner is now pending was appointed by a notification made by the Government under Section 6(1) as a Special judge for the District of Bijapur. This Additional Sessions Judge is Mr. Range Gowda. It is Mr. Range Gowda's competence to proceed with the trial of the case against him that was questioned by the petitioner. Mr. Range Gowda having overruled that objection, the petitioner is before us and asks us to issue a Writ of Prohibition restraining him from proceeding with the trial. 6. Although the notification by which Mr. Range Gowda was appointed as an Additional Special Judge is not placed before us, it is not disputed by any one that he has been so appointed. The date on which Mr. Range Gowda was appointed as a Special Judge has not been made available to us but it if said that by the time Mr. Range Gowda commenced the trial he had been so appointed. The position therefore is that there are now for the District of Bijapur, as many as three Special Judges. One of them is Mr. J.M. Sequeira who was appointed on December 28, 1957, the other is Mr. J.A. Sequeira who was appointed on January 25, 1958 and the third is Mr. Range Gowda who has been since appointed. Although Mr. J.M. Sequeira was, when he was appointed as Special Judge and District aid Sessions-Judge of Bijapur, he has since retired. But the fact that he has retired does not mean that he has ceased to be a Special Judge since he was appointed monoamine and since it is clear from Sub-Section (2) of Section 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act that a person in order to be qualified for appointment as a Special Judge need not be in service as a Sessions Judge but that it is enough if he has been a Sessions Judge. Unless therefore, the notification appointing Mr. J.M. Sequeira as Special Judge for the District of Bijapur is revoked by another notification made by the Government, it is clear that he continues to function as a Special Judge for that District. 7. It is likewise clear that Mr. Unless therefore, the notification appointing Mr. J.M. Sequeira as Special Judge for the District of Bijapur is revoked by another notification made by the Government, it is clear that he continues to function as a Special Judge for that District. 7. It is likewise clear that Mr. J.A. Sequeira still continues to be a Special Judge for the District of Bijapur notwithstanding the fact that he was an Assistant Judge and Additional Sessions Judge for the District of Dhaiwar when he was appointed as a Special Judge and that he has now been promoted as a Sessions Judge and is presiding over the Court of Session at Bihar. 8. The question is whether in this situation Mr. Range Gowda who is one of the three Special Judges appointed under Section 6(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, has the competence to proceed with the trial of the prosecution commenced against the petitioner. 9. The offence with which the petitioner has been charged is an offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and that being so and as provided by S. 6(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, the State Government had the power to appoint a Special Judge for the trial of that offence. One of the offences specified in Section 6(1) of that Act is an offence punishable under Section 161 and Section 7(2) of the Act directs that every offence specified in Sub-Section (1) of Section 6 shall be tried only by a Special Judge for the area within which it was committed. That being so, the offence which is stated to have been committed by the petitioner in this case falling as it does within Section 6(1) could be tried only by the Special Judge for the area within which it was committed and it is not disputed that according to the prosecution case the offence with which the petitioner is charged was committed within the area of the district of Bijapur. 10. But the question is which of the three Special Judges appointed by the Government for the District of Bijapur has the competence to try the offence with which the petitioner has been charged. The answer to this question is to be found in Sub-Section (2) of Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act which reads : "7. 10. But the question is which of the three Special Judges appointed by the Government for the District of Bijapur has the competence to try the offence with which the petitioner has been charged. The answer to this question is to be found in Sub-Section (2) of Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act which reads : "7. (2) Every offence specified in Sub-Section (1) of Section 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 not denied that Mr. Range Gowda was not specified by the State Government as the Special Judge who could try the offence with which the petitioner has been charged. Since there are, as already pointed out, for the district of Bijapur at least three Special Judges it was, as directed by Section 7(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, necessary for the Government to specify which of those three Special Judges should try the offences with which the petitioner was charged. If the Government did not by the notification by which it appointed Mr. Range Gowda or by any subsequent notification confer power upon Mr. Range Gowda to try the offence with which the petitioner was charged, ft is clear, that Mr. Range Gowda cannot claim the competence to try that offence since he is not the only Special Judge appointed for the District of Bijapur, there being two more having been appointed as Special Judges for that area. 11. It is thus clear that Mr. Range Gowda has no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of the cast against the accused. We issue a Writ of prohibition restraining Mr. Range Gowda from proceeding with that case. 12. In the view we take, we express no opinion on the other questions which have been argued before us. All those questions are left open to be urged by the petitioner at the appropriate stage if occasion arises. 13. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs. Petition allowed.