B. D. AGARWAL, J. ( 1 ) THE question which this application under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, given rise is short. The applicant is indicted of offence under section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. On September 15, 1985, he was taken to the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur, within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed. The Chief Judicial Magistrate directed that the accused be transferred to Allahabad for being produced before the Judicial Magistrate (Special) Economic Offences, Allahabad. On 30th September, 1985, the application for bail moved for the applicant-accused was rejected on merit by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special) Economic Offences, Allahabad. His application made thereafter to the Court of Session, Allahabad, came up on transfer to the Court of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad, who rejected the same on 7th October, 1985, under the impugned order with the observation that the jurisdiction to entertain the application vests in the Court of Session at Gorakhpur. The applicant bas thereafter approached this Court. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel refers to the notification published on September 16, 1982, issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers under the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereby, after consultation with this Court, the State Government has established a Special Court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class for all districts of the State with its place of sitting at Allahabad to try cases arising under the enactments specified in the Schedule appended to the notification including the Customs Act, 1962, among others. The principle well settled is that an application for bail can only be made to the court which can take cognizance of the offence in respect thereof the accused is arrested or detained vide Ghulam Mohammad v. State and State v. Sajjan Singh2 this was also the view taken by a learned judge of this Court in Ranveer Singh and others v. Deshraj Singh Chauhan and others3. It may not, therefore, be doubted that the application for bail lay before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special) Economic Offences, Allahabad. It may not, therefore, be doubted that the application for bail lay before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special) Economic Offences, Allahabad. ( 3 ) SECTION 14 (3), referred to in the impugned order, reads as under: 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 be ordinarily bolds court, any reference in this Code to the Court of Sessions, 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 Magistrate, as the case may be exercising jurisdiction in relation to the said district or metropolitan area. ( 4 ) THE local jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate (Special) Economic Offences, Allahabad, extends in view of the notification dated 16th September, 1982, beyond the district of Allahabad in which this Court is directed to hold its sitting. The reference to the Court of Session mentioned in section 14 (3) aforementioned at the end, is to be construed as meaning the Court of Session exercising jurisdiction in relation to the district in which such Judicial Magistrate ordinarily holds the court. The expression said districtt appearing in section 14 (3) denotes obviously the district referred to earlier, namely, the district in which the Judicial Magistrate thus appointed ordinarily holds the court. The court below has erred in overlooking this significance of the expression the said district appearing at the fag end of the sub- section. This expression in the context may not denote any district other than the district talked about in the opening portion of the sub-section, namely, the district in which the Judicial Magistrate concerned is ordinarily to hold the court. There is nothing to suggest to the contrary in the notification mode under section 11 (1) under which this court has been created. This appeals also to common sense. There is nothing to suggest to the contrary in the notification mode under section 11 (1) under which this court has been created. This appeals also to common sense. Where, as in this case, the case is triable before the Judicial Magistrate (Special) Economic Offences, Allahabad, the Legislature may not have intended that, upon the application being rejected by the trial court, the accused has to go round the State making his application to the Court of Session situate in far flung areas where he may have sought the remedy had there been no special court created. The Court of Session conferred with the powers in relation to such a case is the Court of Session of the district Allahabad where the court thus created is ordinarily to have its sitting. ( 5 ) CONSIDERATION being had to the above, the impugned order dated 7th October, 1985 cannot be sustained, in my opinion. Since the court below has not entered into the merits of the application made for bail by the applicant, it is incumbent that the same is now considered on merits. ( 6 ) THE application succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 7th October, 1985 passed by the first Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad, is set aside. The court below is directed to hear and decide the application for bail moved for the applicant-accused expeditiously in accordance with law in the light of the observation contained herein above. ( 7 ) CERTIFIED copy of the order may be supplied to the counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within 48 hours. Application allowed .