JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS order shall govern the disposal of both the revisions mentioned above. The office having pointed out certain difficulties on an important question of law, this Court thought it proper to register the case as Criminal Revision and, therefore, we are exercising powers suo motu in order to resolve the important question of law. ( 2. ) UNDER section 7 (2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, the state Government is empowered to constitute Courts of Special Judges for the areas within which the offence specified in sub-section (1) of section 6 is committed or where there are more Special Judges than one for such area, the state Government is empowered to direct the trial by any particular Special judge as may be specified in that behalf. Section 8 of the Act provides that a special Judge may take cognizance of offences without the accused being committed to him for trial and in trying the accused persons, the Special Judge is to follow the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure for the trial of warrant cases by Magistrate. Therefore, the resultant position is that save as provided in sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Act, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, are applicable so far as they are not inconsistent with the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, and for the pur-pose of the said provision the Court of Special Judge is to be deemed to be a Court of Sessions Trying cases without a jury or without the aid of assessors and the person conducting a prosecution before Special Judge is to be deemed to be a Public Prosecutor. It is also provided that in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in sub-section (3), the provisions of section 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, so far as may apply to the proceedings before a Special Judge and for the purposes of the said proceedings, a Special Judge is to be deemed to be a Magistrate. The word area occurring in sub-section (2) of section 7 of the Criminal Law amendment Act, 1952, has not been defined. The word area occurring in sub-section (2) of section 7 of the Criminal Law amendment Act, 1952, has not been defined. However, taking it in its general sense, it may mean the area over which the Special Judge exercises jurisdiction by virtue of the Notification issued by the State Government constituting the Court of the Special Judge. ( 3. ) BY Notification No. 3345-4047/xxi-B, dated 5th October, 1963, all Sessions Judges and Additional Sessions Judges within their respective sessions divisions were designated as Special Judges under the Act. For such sessions Judges and Additional Sessions Judges, the area would mean their respective Sessions divisions. Similarly, where a Sessions Judge or an additional Sessions Judge has been appointed a Special Judge for trying cases investigated by the Special Police Establishment, the area would comprise of the revenue district for which he may be so appointed. ( 4. ) IN the present case we are concerned with the Khargone revenue district. At Khargone there is an Additional Sessions Judge functioning, who according to the said Notification, would be empowered to try cases specified in section 6, sub-section (1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952. Khargone is in West Nimar Civil district, the headquarter of which is at mandleshwar, where the Sessions Judge is posted. According to the Notifica-tion mentioned above, the Sessions Judge, Mandleshwar, would be competent to exercise jurisdiction throughout the civil district West Nimar and Additional sessions Judges posted within that civil district would be competent to try cases within their own territorial jurisdiction. This Notification mentioned above has repealed an earlier Notification except some matters mentioned in it. It is therefore, necessary to examine the effect of the saving in the said notification. ( 5. ) IN Criminal Revision No. 529 of 1968 also we are concerned with a case filed in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge acting as a Special judge under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952. As the cases would be triable by the Sessions Judge sitting at Mandleshwar as also by the Addi-tional Sessions Judges posted at Khargone, the question arises whether the power of the State Government exercised initially in matter of allotment of cases would be exhausted and whether the High Court or the Sessions Court would be competent to give direction about the trial of cases in the case of doubt. In this connection it may be relevant to reproduce section 7 (2) and section 8 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, which are as under: "s. 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. " Furtheron section 8 of the Act, so far as relevant for our purpose is as follows:- " (1)-A Special Judge may take cognizance of him for trial and in trying the accused persons, shall follow the procedure prescribed by the code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act No. V of 1898) for the trial of warrant cases by Magistrates. " Thus, save as provided in subsection (1) of section 7, the provisions of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, are applicable so far as they are not inconsistent with the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952. ( 6. ) FURTHER on, it may be pertinent to note the wording of Notification no. 3345-4047-XXI-B, dated 5th October, 1963, published in the M. P. Gazette dated 22nd November, 1963, Part I, at page 2366, which is as under:- "in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (XLVI of 1952), and in super-session of all previous on the subject, except Notification No. 24953-XXI-B, dated 30th December, 1957, read with Notification No. 1122-XXI-B, dated the 14th January, 1958, and Notification No. 13443-1404-XXI-B, dated the 29th April, 1961, the State Government are pleased to appoint:- (i) all Sessions Judges, and (ii) all Additional Sessions Judges, to be the Special Judges within their respective Sessions divisions for the trial of offences specified therein. " Notification No. 24953-XXI-B, dated 30-12-1957, published in the M. P. Gazette dated 17-1-1958, Part I, at Page 71, is as follows:- "in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, (XLVI of 1952), the State government are pleased to appoint Shri N. B. Sirpurkar, Additional sessions Judge, Jabalpur, as a Special Judge for the areas comprised within the districts of Jabalpur, Sagar, Mandla, Damon, Hoshangabad, Narsimhapur, Khandwa, Betul, Seoni, Chhindwara, Balaghat, Raipur. Durg, bilaspur, Baster, Surguja, Raigarh, Rewa, Sidhi, Panna, Datia, Chhatar-pur, Satna, Umaria and Shahdol." As such, by the said Notification, which has been saved by the subsequent notification, dated 5-10-1963, as mentioned above, Shri N. B. Sirpurkar was to act as a Special Judge for the entire area of the former Mahakoshal region of old Madhya Pradesh and the Vindhya Pradesh region. Notification No. 1122-XXI-B, dated 14-1-1958, is as under: "in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (XLVI of 1952), the State government hereby make the following amendment in this Department notification No. 24953-XXI-B, dated 30-12-1957, namely :-AMENDMENT in the said Notification for the word umaria substitute tikamgarh". Further on, Notification No. 40135-6150-XXI-B, dated 5th November, 1964, is as follows :- "in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (XLVI of 1952), and in supersession of this Department Notification Nos 24953-XXI-B, dated 30-12-1957 and No. 1122-XXI-B, dated 14-1-1958, the State Government are pleased to appoint Shri K. M. Deshmukh, Additional Sessions Judge, jabalpur, as a Special Judge for the areas comprised within the district of jabalpur, Sagar, Mandla, Damoh, Hoshangabad, Narsimhapur, Khandwa, betul, Seoni, Chhindwara, Balaghat, Raipur, Durg, Bilaspur, Baster, surguja, Raigarh, Rewa, Sidhi, Panna, Datia, Chhatarpur, Satna, Tikamgarh and Shahdol. " The Notification No. 13443-1404-XXI-B, dated 29th April, 1961, as published in the M. P. Govt. Gazette, dated 26th May, 1961, Part I, at page 827, is as follows:- "in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, (XLVI of 1952), and in super-sessions of this Department Notification No. 24952-XXl-B, dated the 13th December 1957, the State Government are pleased to appoint the fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, as a Special Judge for the area comprised within the revenue districts of Gwalior, Morena, Bhmd, Shivpuri, guna, Vidisha, Shajapur, Ujjain, Dewas, Indore, Dhar, Ratlam, Jhabua, mandsaur, Raigarh, West Nimar (Khargone), Sehore and Raisen. " As such, the fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, was to act as a Special judge for the entire area of former Madhya Bharat (Part B) State and the part-C State of Bhopal. ( 7. ) IT is to be noted that these three Notifications have been saved by the Notification, dated 5-10-1963. " As such, the fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, was to act as a Special judge for the entire area of former Madhya Bharat (Part B) State and the part-C State of Bhopal. ( 7. ) IT is to be noted that these three Notifications have been saved by the Notification, dated 5-10-1963. Thus, the situation that arises is that the additional Sessions Judge at Jabalpur was empowered to try cases as a Special judge under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1. 952, in respect of the entire area of the former Mahakoshal region of the old Madhya Pradesh and the former Vindhya Pradesh region and the fourth Additional Sessions Judge, indore, is empowered to try all cases in relation to the former Madhya Bharat area as Part B State and the Bhopal region as Part C, State. Keeping these notifications alive, the Notification, dated 5 10-1963, empowered all Sessions judge and Additional Sessions Judges to try cases within their respective jurisdiction as Special Judges. Thus, more than one Judge in every Sessions division is empowered to try cases as Special Judge under the Criminal Law amendment Act, 1952. In order to allocate jurisdiction, section 7 (2) of the act empowers the State Government to specify as to which of the several special Judges will try a particular case. Therefore, the further question arises whether after the initial allocation, the power of the State Government would stand exhausted. ( 8. ) IN Misc. Criminal Case No. 65 of 1967 (The State of M. P. through police Narayangarh v. Laxminaran), Naik, J. had to hear a reference made by the Sessions Judge, Ratlam, whereby Special Case No. I of I960. , previously tried by Shri K. N. Ghangrekar, Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, mandsaur, was sought to be transferred to the Court of Shri,d. . B. Pawade, special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur. By order, dated 17-4-1967, Naik, J. , considering the above provisions, observed that on the retirement of Shri K. N. Ghangrekar, Shri D. B. Pawade came to be appointed at Mandsaur and as such, Shri D. B. Pawade got the seisin of the cases formerly tried by his predecessor, Shri K. N. Ghangrekar. By order, dated 17-4-1967, Naik, J. , considering the above provisions, observed that on the retirement of Shri K. N. Ghangrekar, Shri D. B. Pawade came to be appointed at Mandsaur and as such, Shri D. B. Pawade got the seisin of the cases formerly tried by his predecessor, Shri K. N. Ghangrekar. Naik, J. held that as Shri D. B. Pawade was a succeeding Judge, who was competent under section 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with section 8 (3-A) of the criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, to try the case which was being tried earlier by his predecessor Shri K. N. Ghangrekar, he was competent to do so. It was contended before Naik, J. that when the Special Judge was allotted a case by name, he could not have a succeeding Judge. Naik, J. rejected that suggestion and observed that whenever there be more Special judges than one in one area, some method would have to be devised to distribute work betw en them. The method chosen by the Act was one of allotment by the State Government which was empowered to specify one of such Judges as per section 7 (2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952. Naik, J. , however, further expressed the opinion that once that has been done the power of such allotment by the State Government would come to an end and the further progress of the case would thereafter be determined by the provisions of section 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with section 8 (3-A) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 under which a Special judge, who is successor of the allottee Judge has to try the same. By such allotment or nomination, he may not become a persona designata, nor does any special significance attach to such selection. In that view, Naik, J. held that Shri D. B. Pawade, the successor Judge was competent to try the special case under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, which was formerly being tried by his predecessor, Shri K. N. Ghangrekar. Naik, J. considered the case-law in order to interpret the word trial. It is not necessary for us to go into that discussion all over again. We may observe that generally speaking we are in agreement with the view expressed by Naik, J. in the said case. ( 9. Naik, J. considered the case-law in order to interpret the word trial. It is not necessary for us to go into that discussion all over again. We may observe that generally speaking we are in agreement with the view expressed by Naik, J. in the said case. ( 9. ) IT is further to be noted that previously appointments were made by name and, therefore, the question used to arise whether the Judge appointed acted as a Court or as a persona designata. But, all subsequent Notifications which are still in force have avoided to appoint Judges by their names. On the other hand such appointments are by virtue of office, either as a sessions Judge of a particular Sessions Division or an Additional Sessions judge of a particular territory in the Sessions Division. Thus, no difficulty arises now and the successor Judge would always be competent to try a case which was previously tried by his predecessor. We may further observe that the initial power of allotment of a case would be with the State Government under section 7 (2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, because not only Sessions Judges, but also the Additional Sessions Judges and the two Special Judges sitting at Jabalpur and Indore would be competent to try cases within their own jurisdiction. The two Special Judges sitting at Jabalpur and Indore would be competent to try any case in the two regions comprising the former Mahakoshal region and the former Vindhya Pradesh, Part-C State in one case and the Madhya Bharat region, Part-B, State and the Bhopal region, Part- C, State. This would be more or less a duplication of jurisdiction and the State Government initially would have the power to resolve a conflict of jurisdiction. But, once that power is exercised by the State government, we do not see any further power with the State Government to reallocate cases either under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, or the criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952. Section 7 (3-A) of the Criminal Law amendment Act, 1952, would have to be given its full effect. But, once that power is exercised by the State government, we do not see any further power with the State Government to reallocate cases either under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, or the criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952. Section 7 (3-A) of the Criminal Law amendment Act, 1952, would have to be given its full effect. The said sub-section is as follows :- " (3-A) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in sub-section (3), the provisions of section 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, so far as may be, apply to the proceedings before a Special Judge and for the purposes of the said provisions a Special Judge, shall be deemed to be a Magistrate. " ( 10. ) THEREFORE, we agree with the view expressed by Naik, J. in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shivnath Shorda (Criminal Revision No. 530 of 1968)and the State of M. P. v. Gulabchand and two others (Criminal Revision No. 529 of 1968) that the State Government has the power to allocate cases initially. But, there being no such power to allocate cases subsequently on transfer or retirement of Judges, the matter will be governed by the provisions of the code of Criminal Procedure and the Successor Judge would be competent to exercise jurisdiction in view of the fact that the appointments have been made by office and not by names personally. As such, the Judges presiding over the Court do not act as a persona designata, but they act as Courts, which are governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it would be the Courts mentioned in sections 528 and 526 of the Code of criminal Procedure, which would be able to exercise the power of transfer. We, therefore, answer the reference by stating that the view expressed by naik, J. in the said two revisions is the only correct view, which would be applicable to such situations. ( 11. ) THE law Secretary should, therefore, be informed that the said two cases referred to above, shall be governed by the decision of Naik, J. in the state of M. P. v. Laxminarayan (Misc. Cri. Case No. 65 of 1967) and that there is no necessity of allotting those cases to any particular Special Judge. ( 11. ) THE law Secretary should, therefore, be informed that the said two cases referred to above, shall be governed by the decision of Naik, J. in the state of M. P. v. Laxminarayan (Misc. Cri. Case No. 65 of 1967) and that there is no necessity of allotting those cases to any particular Special Judge. The successor of the Special Judge to whom the cases were originally allotted shall dispose them of. Reference answered accordingly.