M. WAHAJUDDIN, J. ( 1 ) THE applicants figured as accused persons in criminal case No. 1410/9/1981 which was pending in the court of C. J. M. Moradabad. It is stated that on 26. 1. 1977 the premises of the applicants were searched and 4 bars of Primary Gold are alleged to have been found concealed there, in a secret chamber, in the back of the shop. On such information being furnished by Income Tax Authorities to the authorities of Central Excise proceeding under Gold (Control) Act of 1965 was initiated and ultimately a complaint was filed under Section 8 of that Act by opposite party No. 3, namely, Assistant Collector Excise, Rampur. It is alleged that in pursuance of a Government Notification of September 16, 1982 for constituting Special courts for offences under various Central Acts including Gold (Control) Act 1968, issued by the Government, the court further issued notification No. 569 of 18. 10. 1982 appointing Sri R. K. Gupta Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad as Judicial Magistrate First Class to preside over the Special court to try cases under specified Central Acts including Gold (Control) Act 1968 and the aforesaid case was then transferred to the aforesaid Special court at Allahabad and registered here as Case No. 136 of 1982. ( 2 ) THE first point urged is that the scheme of Criminal Procedure Code indicates that courts can be created for functioning in each districts and consequently any court could not be created for trying offences in the whole of the State. In support of that argument reliance is placed upon Section 11, 12 and 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 11 of the Criminal Procedure Code runs as follows: Section 11.-Courts of Judicial Magistrates- (1) In every district (not being a metropolitan and), there shall be established as many Courts of Judicial Magistrates of the first class and of the second class, and at such places, as the State Government may, after consultation with the High Court by Notification, specify. (Provided that the State Government may, after consultation with the High Court establish, for any local area, one of more Special Courts of Judicial Magistrates of the first class or of the second class to try any particular case or particular class of cases and were any such Special Court is established no other court of Magistrate in the local area shall have jurisdiction to try any case of class of cases for the trial of which such Special Court of Judicial Magistrate has been pending ). (2) The presiding officers of such Courts shall be appointed by the High Court. (3) The High Court may, whenever it appears to it to be expedient or necessary, confer the powers of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class or of the second Class on any member of the Judicial Service of the State, functioning as a Judge in a. Civil Court. It may be noteworthy that the proviso in bracket has been introduced by Cr. P. C. Amendment Act, 1978. It is also noteworthy that as per U. P. Act No. 16 of 1976 Section 11 (1a) running as follows also stood inserted: 111 (1a)-The State Government may like wise establish as many Courts of Judicial Magistrates of the first class and of the second class in respect to particular cases, or to a particular class or particular classes of cases, or in regard to cases generally, in any local area. Under Section 12 (1) Cr. P. C. it is laid down that in every district Chief Judicial Magistrate shall be appointed. Section 12 (2) deals with the appointment of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Section 12 (3) (a) provides for designating any Judicial Magistrate first class in any sub-division as the Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, and Section 12 (3) (b) provides that subject to the general Control of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, every Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate may also exercise such powers of supervision and control over Judicial Magistrate (other than Additional Chief Judicial Magistrates) in the sub-division as the High Court may by generator special order, specify in this behalf. Section 14 runs as follows: Section 14. Local jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrates(1) Subject to the control of the High Court, the Chief Judicial Magistrate may, from time to time, define the local limits of the areas within which the Magistrate appointed. Section 14 runs as follows: Section 14. Local jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrates(1) Subject to the control of the High Court, the Chief Judicial Magistrate may, from time to time, define the local limits of the areas within which the Magistrate appointed. Under Section 11 or under Section 13 may exercise all or any of the powers with which they may respectively be invested under this Code. Provided that the Court of a Special Judicial Magistrate may hold its sitting at any place within the local area for which it is established. (2) Except as otherwise provided by such definition, the jurisdiction and powers of every such Magistrate shall extend throughout the district. (3) Where the local jurisdiction of a Magistrate, appointed under Section 11 or Section 13 or Section 18, extends to an area beyond the district, or the metropolitan area, as the case may be, in which he ordinarily, holds courts, any reference in this Code to the Court of Session, Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall, in relation to such Magistrate throughout the area within his local jurisdiction, be construed, unless the context otherwise requires, as a reference to the Court of Session, Chief Judicial Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrates, as the case may be, exercising jurisdiction in relation to the said district or metropolitan area. It may be mentioned that sub clause (3) of this Section has again been inserted by the Cr. P. C. Amendment Act 1978. It is argued that in view of the language of these sections courts of Magistrates including Special. Judicial Magistrate are contemplated for only a district and that is why under Section 14 the Chief Judicial Magistrate of the district has been empowered to define the local limits of the areas within which the Magistrates appointed under Section 11 or under Section 13 may exercise all or any of tile powers with which they may respectively be invested. Reliance was also placed upon Section 177 Cr. P. C. in which it has been laid down that every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Reliance was also placed upon Section 177 Cr. P. C. in which it has been laid down that every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. It is urged that in view of the same the local limit, as laid down under Section 14 sub- clause (1), and the local area has to be confined to a district and cannot extend beyond district as to cover the whole or part of the State. Such submission overlooks and ignores the various amendments made in the Cr. P. C. As the expression local limits are to be interpreted. I may start with the amendment introduced under section 2 (j ). Earlier it laid down that local jurisdiction Rule in relation to a Court or Magistrate, means the local area within which the court or Magistrate may exercise all or any of its or his powers under this Code. This definition of local jurisdiction was further specified by an amendment as per section 2 of the Amending Act No. 45 of 1978 and the portions laid down below were added: And such local area may comprise the whole of the State or any part of the State, as the State Government may by notification specify. In view of such amendments the legislature has enlarged the scope of local area as to cover not only any local area in a. district but to cover the whole of the State or any part of the State as the Government may by notification specify. In the like manner by inserting 11 (1a) by U. P. Act No. 16 of 1976 the State Government has been empowered to establish as many courts of Judicial Magistrates of the first class and of the second class in respect to particular cases, or to a particular class or particular classes of cases or in regard to cases generally, in any local area. Further by adding the afore said proviso to Section 11 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code creation of special courts by State Government in consultation with the High Court have been provided for to try any particular case or any particular class of cases and not only that it has also been expressly provided that no other court of Magistrate in the local area shall have jurisdiction to try any case or class of cases for the trial of which such special courts of Special Magistrate has been established. Later part of the amendment expressly bars the Jurisdiction of the other courts to hold trial of such cases. If all these amendments arc read together the only harmonious interpretation will be that:1. Special courts can be created not only for a District alone but exercising jurisdiction over whole or part of the State. 2. Such courts are to be created in the manner provided. ( 3 ) THEY are to be created in respect of particular class or classes of cases. ( 4 ) ONCE such courts are duly created any other court cannot try such cases in respect of which jurisdiction has been conferred upon Special courts. 3. Creation of Special courts is not innovation as such Special courts have been created for trial of a case or cases in pest also making special notification. That scope has now been widened by providing for creation of any special courts for even the whole state to try particular class or classes of cases. 4. The State Government may consider certain offenses to be grave in their nature and species, affecting the Society adversely, and the provisions cannot be struck as bad simply because a person will have to cover any long distance fur facing the trial instead of facing it in his own district. It is needless to further dwell upon the subject when there is no clear allegation that any particular Section or Article of the Constitution has been violated. It is needless to further dwell upon the subject when there is no clear allegation that any particular Section or Article of the Constitution has been violated. ( 5 ) IT was argued that in any case such legislation regarding territorial jurisdiction concerning any particular cases or class of cases cannot be retrospective and as the amendment in the definition of local area contained in Section 2 (j) of the Criminal Procedure Code as well as the proviso to section 11 have both been introduced in 1978 while offence was committed in 1977 the amendment will not operate retrospectively in relation to such cases. It is noteworthy that vide U. P. Act 16 of 1976 Sections 4 and 11 the following provisions were made: 4. In Section 13 for the words second class the words first or second class shall be substituted and for the words 1n any district the words in any local area shall be Till. Validation-Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any Court. (a) any notification of the State Government issued before November 28,1975 purporting to establish any Court of Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction over more than one district shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 11 read with section 13 of the said Code as amended by this Act and be deemed to be and always to have been valid U. P. Act No. 16 of 1976 Sections 4 and 11. It may also be mentioned that in Section 11 for the words in any district, the words in any local area were substituted. All these clearly indicate that the intention of the legislature is clearly to give retrospective effect from the date such Special courts are created irrespective of the date on which the offence was actually committed. It is also noteworthy that by the very amending Act, 1976 Section 11 (1-A) was added as to provide for creation of courts in any local area instead of in any district, and that provision was also given a retrospective effect laying down that Section 11 (1a) will be deemed always to have been inserted. It is also noteworthy that by the very amending Act, 1976 Section 11 (1-A) was added as to provide for creation of courts in any local area instead of in any district, and that provision was also given a retrospective effect laying down that Section 11 (1a) will be deemed always to have been inserted. By introducing the expression local area instead of in every district which change was made in 1976, it is clear that the jurisdiction of the Special Court so created for any particular cases or to particular classes or cases is not limited to any district and extends beyond that and that is why the expression local area was introduced. The legislature to avoid further controversy in 1978 made an amendment in the definition section that is Section 2 (j) as to lay down that local area may include the whole state or a part of the State as well. Apart from that once it is expressly provided in the proviso to section 11 (1) that one Special courts is established on other courts of Magistrate in the local area shall have jurisdiction to try any case or class of cases for the trial of which the courts have been created makes the intention of the legislature very clear that once Special Courts are created other courts cannot try such cases meaning thereby that a retrospective effect has to be given. In the present case as would appear from the Notification Annexure II Sri R. K. Gupta, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad alone is empowered to try cases of the Central Gold Control Act, 1968 and he has the exclusive jurisdiction so no other court can try any such case irrespective of the date on which it was committed. ( 6 ) RELIANCE was placed upon the case of T. S. Bajpeyi v. K. K. Gangauli and others in which it was held that while section 14 of 1898 Criminal Procedure Code contained a provision for creating court for particular cases or class of cases for the entire State no such provision is contained analogous to Section 14 of the Act in Section 13 Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 hence such courts could not be created. This decision was made in November 1975 before the various amendment Acts introducing amendments namely, U. P. Act No. 16 of 1976 and U. P. No. 18 of 1978 came into force. In fact, if one reads statement of objects and reasons for the amendment contained in amendment Act No. 16 of 1976 it would be found that the various amendments under Section 11 inserting Section 11 (1a) and the amendment under section 13 substituting the words in local area for the words in district was made to meet the very situation. After such amendments it cannot be urged that courts can be created only for in district and not for any larger area so this ruling will not help now. I have discussed the matter thread bare and I do not find any force in this application under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code and it is hereby summarily rejected. Application rejected. .