ORDER The only question the requires as answer in this Rule is whether the petitioner Sanjit Kumar Dutta is to be tried by the ordinary Criminal Court or by the Special Court constituted under the West Bengal Criminal Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The question arises in the way. 2. The petitioner has had been holding the post of Works Assistant under the Howrah Improvement Trust since 1965. In May 1976 the Officer-on-Special Duty of the said Trust filed a complaint against the petitioner in the Court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Howrah alleging that the petitioner produced the job of Works Assistant by falsely representing that the had passed the Higher Secondary examination and that in support of his representation he produced a certificate which was forged. On that complaint the learned Magistrate passed an order under S. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and pursuant to the said order the Officer in charge, Howrah Police Station, registered a case against the petitioner under Ss 468/471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The case ended in a charge-sheet and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, framed charges under the aforesaid sections against the petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty. After a few prosecution witness were examined a petition was filed on behalf of the State contending that the case against the petitioner was to be tried by the Special Court constitutes under the Act and not by the ordinary Criminal Court as the offence was committed by him while purporting to act as a public servant. The learned Magistrate rejected the petition and decided to proceed with the trial. Aggrieved thereby the State moved a revisional application which was allowed by the learned Session Judge, Howrah and the learned Judge sent the case back with a direction that it should be referred to the Special Court and directed the prosecution to take necessary steps for that purpose. The above order the learned Sessions Judge, Howrah is the subject-matter of challenge in this Rule. 3. In the case of State of West Bengal v. Manmal reported in 1977 Cr. The above order the learned Sessions Judge, Howrah is the subject-matter of challenge in this Rule. 3. In the case of State of West Bengal v. Manmal reported in 1977 Cr. LJ page 1164 the Supreme Court has held that the crucial date for the purpose of attaching the provisions of the Act is whether the offence has been committed by a public servant within the definition of S. 21 of the Indian Penal Code and the date for determination the offence is the date of the commission of offence when the person arraigned must be a public servant. The employees of Howrah Improvement Trust undoubtedly are public servant within the meaning of S. 21 of the Indian Penal Code and in that context it has only to be ascertained whether the petitioner committed the offence alleged against him as a public servant. 4. The offence alleged against the petitioner is that he obtained the job of Works Assistant by false representation and by producing forged document. According to the prosecution he obtained the job of a public servant by committing certain offences and not that he committed the offences as a public servant. In other words, the false representation that he made and the forged document that he produced were for getting the job of a public servant, and not as a public servant. 5. The learned Judge however took the view that since he obtained the job, the petitioner has had been receiving salary from the Trust as a public servant and since such receipt of money was by false representation it amounted to an offence under S. 420 I.P.C. for which he was triable under the Act. I am unable to accept the reasoning of the learned Judge. The letter of appointment which entitled the petitioner to be a public servant was obtained by false representation and by production of forged document. The letter of appointment is “property” within the meaning of S. 420 of the Indian Penal Code because though it has no pecuniary value of its own it has immense value of the receipt as thereby he becomes entitled to the job and to salary. The letter of appointment is “property” within the meaning of S. 420 of the Indian Penal Code because though it has no pecuniary value of its own it has immense value of the receipt as thereby he becomes entitled to the job and to salary. By inducing the authority of the Trust to issue the latter of appointment in his favour the petitioner committed the offence under S. 420 of the Indian Penal Code and since such inducement was on the basis of forged document the petitioner also committed offence under S. 467 read with S. 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Once the latter of appointment was issued in favour of the petitioner the offence under S. 420 of the Indian Penal Code was complete and therefore the subsequent receipt of salary pursuant to the said letter of appointment would be create any further offence under S. 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. For the forgoing discussion the order of the learned Session Judge cannot be sustained. The application therefore succeeds and the Rule is made absolute. The impugned order the leaned Session Judge is hereby set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law. 7. Before parting with this Judgment I must place on record my deep appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. Dipak Sengupta, who appeared as amicus curiae, in deciding this case. Rule made absolute.