BERI, C.J.—On November 22, 1972, the Special Public Prosecutor presented a final report under sec. 173, Criminal P.C. against Zahoor Ahmed, Assistant Registrar, Co operative Department, Jalore, for offences under sec 161, Indian Penal Code and sec.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the P. C. Act). When the case came on February 28, 1973, Mr. D.D. Bajaj learned Special Judge, Jalore, after examining the file observed that there was a prima facie case against Zahoor Ahmed under sec. 409 of the Indian Penal Code and he took cognizance of it and registered the case In regard to the other offences he approved the final report. The learned Special Public Prosecutor was directed to furnish copies under sec. 173, Criminal P. C. and Zahoor Ahmed was called by bailable warrant in the sum of Rs. 2,000/-. Later, for the whole of Rajasthan, a Special Judge came to be appointed at Jaipur and the case therefore travelled up to him. Zahoor Ahmed is dissatisfied on account of the order of February 20, 1973 passed by the Special Judge, Jalore and he come up in revision. 2. Mr. Jaswantmal, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that under sec.6 of the Criminal Law (Amendments) Act, 1952 the State Government is authorised to appoint as many Special Judges as may be necessary to try the offences mentioned in sub-sec. (l) (a) of sec. 8 which includes offences under sec.5 of the P.C. Act. Sec. 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act lays down that the offences specified in sub sec. (1) of sec. 6 shall be triable by Special Judges only, thus excluding the jurisdiction of the ordinary criminal courts. Sub-sec. (3) of sec. 7 however, provides that when trying any case, Special Judge may also try any offence other than an offence specified in sec. 6 with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, be charged at the same trial. Urges the learned counsel, that having accepted the final report in regard to the offences under sec.161 of the Indian Penal Code and sec.5 (2) of the P.C. Act, the learned Special Judge had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under sec. 409 Indian Penal Code. He placed reliance on Ramautar Mahton vs. The State (l) and Sahebkhan Umerkhan vs. The State (2) a case of the Gujarat High Court. 409 Indian Penal Code. He placed reliance on Ramautar Mahton vs. The State (l) and Sahebkhan Umerkhan vs. The State (2) a case of the Gujarat High Court. He also invited my attention to the significant observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Omprakash vs. The State of U. P. (3) to substantiate the contention that sec. 5(l)(c) of the P. C. Act is an offence distinct from the one under sec. 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Mr. Jain appearing for the State argues that sec. 409, Indian Penal Code is the same as sec. 5(1) (c) of the P.C. Act and it is open to the Special Judge to take cognizance thereof. He relies upon Muhammad Ali vs. The State (4) and the State vs. Sahebrao Govindrao Jadhav (5). 4. Mr. Shrimal learned Additional Advocate General appeared before me to supplement the arguments of the learned counsel for the State. He urges that sec. 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 restricts only the trial before the Special Judge while sec. 8 speaks of taking cognizance by Special Judge of offences and sec. 409, Indian Penal Code, being one of the offences he could take cognizance thereof as distinct from trial. He places reliance on Messrs Feddors Lioyd Corporation (P) Ltd. vs. B. A. Lakshminarayana Swami (6). 5 Mr. Bhimraj also rendered assistance to the Court in answering the interesting question that confronts me. 6. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it would be profitable to ascertain the purposes for which the Criminal Law Amendment Act was enacted and its Scheme. The malignancy of bribery and corruption appeared to be spreading its tentacle in the body politic of our country and in order to combat this serious evil certain provisions were made by the Criminal Law Amendment Act. A special forum was created with a view to eliminate delays The qualifications prescribed for appointment of a Special Judge under sec. 6(2) unambiguously placed emphasis on experience. No person is qualified to be appointed as a Special Judge unless he has or has been a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge. Not text books, but the book of experience has been stressed upon by the legislature, sec. 6(2) unambiguously placed emphasis on experience. No person is qualified to be appointed as a Special Judge unless he has or has been a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge. Not text books, but the book of experience has been stressed upon by the legislature, sec. 7, it will be noticed, begins with a non-obstante clause giving exclusive jurisdiction to a Special Judge for trying offences mentioned in sub-sec. (1) of sec. 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 7 resolves the problem if there are more than one Special Judge in a particular area and sub-sec. (3) provides that when trying any case, which evidently means one under sec. 6(1), a Special Judge may also try any offence other than an offence specified in sec. 6 with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, be charged at the same trial The purpose obviously is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings against the accused, provided the offences other than those mentioned in sec.- 6(1) have such relationship in regard to time, place and nature that they can be charged and tried together under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sec. 8 makes a special provision in regard to the procedure and powers of the Special Judge which says that he may take cognizance of offences without the accused being committed to him for trial. This evidently implies that the steps of committal proceedings are eliminated to lend speed for the decision of cases. Sub-sec. (2 of sec. 8 relates to empowering a Special Judge to tender pardon and sub-sec. (3) provides that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall apply to the proceedings before a Special Judge and for the purposes of the said provisions, the Court of the Special Judge shall be deemed to be a Court of Session trying cases without a jury or without the aid of assessors Sub-sec. (3-A) however makes a small departure that for the purposes of secs 350 and 549 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Special Judge shall be a Magistrate, and sub-sec. (4) gives powers to the Special Judge to pass any sentence authorised by law for offences under sec. 6(1). 7. The first argument of Mr. (3-A) however makes a small departure that for the purposes of secs 350 and 549 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Special Judge shall be a Magistrate, and sub-sec. (4) gives powers to the Special Judge to pass any sentence authorised by law for offences under sec. 6(1). 7. The first argument of Mr. Jain is to be rejected because the answer is provided by the case of the Supreme Court in Omprakash vs. The State of U. P. (3) where the Honble Judges have clearly distinguished the offence under sec. 409 Indian Penal Code from an offence under sec. 5(2) of the P. C. Act and they have held that these are two distinct offences The Calcutta case(4) cited by Mr. Jain can be disposed of on the simple ground that the West Bengal Criminal Code (21 of 1949) excluded the applicability of secs. 6 and 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1952 and, therefore, the Calcutta case (4) has been decided regardless of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The Bombay case (5) is clearly a case converse to the one before me. The plea in that case was that sec. 409 could be tried by the Special Judge in accordance with the provisions thereof and the Full Bench answered the question in the negative holding that the effect of the Criminal Law Amendment Act was not to prevent the usual criminal proceedings under the ordinary Code of Criminal Procedure. The reasons advanced in this case help the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. I would now deal with the arguments advanced by the learned Additional Advocate General to the effect that the word "offences" in sec. 8 is not qualified the way it has been in sec. 7. The question that confronts me is : whether the word "offences" embraces within its ambit all offences under the law or only offences enumerated in sec. 6(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act ? My answer to the question is that the word "offences" in sec. 8 only embraces the offences mentioned in sec. 6(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. 6(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act ? My answer to the question is that the word "offences" in sec. 8 only embraces the offences mentioned in sec. 6(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The reasons are that the Criminal Law Amendment Act was enacted to achieve the object of speedy trial by competent and experienced Judges so that there may be a quick and effective impact in regard to the evil of corruption: It was not a piece of legislature designed to supplant the Code of Criminal Procedure The legislature when it employed the word offences" in sec. 8 had clearly in mind what offences were intended to be taken cognizance by a Special Judge. The Delhi case (6) cited by the learned Additional Advocate General merely illustrates the distinction between taking cognizance and trial. Cognizance, as has been held by the Supreme Court in Jamuna Singh vs. Bhadai Shah (7) means taking notice of an offence in a judicial capacity with a view to the initiation against an offender in respect of that offence. The learned Additional Advocate General conceded that if a person presented a complaint under sec. 409 Indian Penal Code simplicitor before the Special Judge he would have no jurisdiction to take cognizance thereof. In the circumstances of the case before me the police went before the learned Special Judge saying that no offence was made out against the petitioner under sec. 5(2) of the P. C. Act and sec. 161 of the Indian Penal Code. That was a final report that it submitted. The learned Special Judge accepted the report in regard to these two offences but said that an offence under sec. 409 Indian Penal Code was made out. Could he take cognizance of the offence under sec. 409, Indian Penal Code? The answer is in the negative because he could not do so in his capacity as Special Judge. His Power to take cognizance is circumscribed by the statute of which he is the creature. The Patna case (l) lends assistance to this view. 9. The result is that this revision application is accepted and the order dated February 28, 1973 of the court below is set aside.