B. D. AGARWAL, J. ( 1 ) THE Short question which these connected applications made under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure give rise is whether the cases out of which they arise lie within the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate or as to whether the exclusive jurisdiction to try them vests in the Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Jhansi. During March 20, 1971 to April 12, 1976 Ravi Prakash Srivastava-the respondent was a clerk in the employment of the United Commercial Bank, Bara Bazar, Jhansi. First information reports were lodged against him by several persons alleging that he had dishonestly and fraudulently for the sake of pecuniary gain to himself and others made entries on the credit and debits sides fictitiously in the different accounts maintained at the Bank and misappropriated the amount to himself. Upon investigation charge sheet was submitted against the respondent by the investigating agency of offences under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 and 120 B Penal Code read with Section 5 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. This was in August/september, 1977; sanction under section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was accorded by the Deputy General Manager under his order dated April 19, 1978. The investigation, it appears, sought advice of the District Government Counsel (Criminal), Jhansi where after a revised charge sheet was submitted in these cases in January, 1980 wherein a reference to offence under Section 5 (2), Prevention of Corruption Act was omitted. Chief Judicial Magistrate framed charge against the respondent for offences under Sections 468 or 409 Penal Code. Certain witnesses were examined also from the side of the prosecution. On October 16, 1984 counsel for the United Commercial Bank put in application in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate contending that the Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Jhansi had the exclusive jurisdiction to try these cases in view of the offences committed allegedly under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and, therefore, the cases were liable to transfer to that court. The application was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in each of these cases under similar order passed on November 30, 1984. Aggrieved the United Bank has through its Manager approached this Court. The application was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in each of these cases under similar order passed on November 30, 1984. Aggrieved the United Bank has through its Manager approached this Court. ( 2 ) LEARNED Chief Judicial Magistrate records that the respondent is a public servant and also that the revised charge sheet was submitted in view of the advice obtained from the District Government Counsel. It is observed, however, that since in the revised charge sheet there is no reference of the offence under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and because none of the witnesses on the prosecution side had stated that the deposit was taken by the respondent, there could not be said to be a case made out of offence under that provision. It is observed further in the order that if in the course of evidence there appears evidence that the accused has committed offence punishable under this provision, the case shall be remitted to the court of the Special Judge. ( 3 ) CRIMINAL Law (Amendment) Act, 1952 as appears from the preamble, amends the Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure and provides for a more speedy trial of certain offences. Section 6 provides for the appointment of the Special Judge and empowers the State Government by notification in the gazette to appoint as many Special Judges as may be necessary for such area as may be specified in the notification to try offences punishable under Sections 161, 165 or Section 165-A Penal Code or Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to commit or any abatement of the offences specified above. Section 7 in so far as relevant provides: 117 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, or in any other law the offences specified in Sub-Section (1) of Section 6 shall be triable by Special Judges only. (3) When trying any case, Special Judge may also try offence other than an offence specified in Section 6 with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, be charged at the same trial. (3) When trying any case, Special Judge may also try offence other than an offence specified in Section 6 with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, be charged at the same trial. ( 4 ) IN view of these provisions the jurisdiction of the Special Judge to try a case for offences under Sections 161, 165, 165a Penal Code or Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 is exclusive. The provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure stand modified to this extent in view of the non obstante clause with which Section 7 (1) opens. The vires of these provisions has been upheld by the Supreme Court vide Asgarali Nazarali v. State of Bombay1. The exclusive jurisdiction created of the Special Judge in these matters is emphasised upon analysis of the provisions of the Act as appearing from paragraph 10 which may be reproduced as under: It is clear from the provisions of the impugned Act set out hereinabove that the intention of the legislature in enacting the same was to amend the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 with a view to provide for a more speedy trial of offences punishable under Sections 161, 165 or 165-A of the Indian Penal Code or Sub-Section (2) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Special Judges of the statuts of Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge were to be appointed for the purpose of trying these offences and these offences were made triable only by these special judges. Not only were the special judges invested with the exclusive jurisdiction to try these offences but they were also empowered while trying any case involving these offences to try any offences other than those offences with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 be charged at the same trial. Committal proceedings were also done away with and the special judges were empowered to take cognizance of these offences without the accused being committed to them for trial and were empowered to try the accused persons of the same by following the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, for the trial of warrant cases by Magistrates. Committal proceedings were also done away with and the special judges were empowered to take cognizance of these offences without the accused being committed to them for trial and were empowered to try the accused persons of the same by following the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, for the trial of warrant cases by Magistrates. The Courts of the Special Judges were deemed to be courts of Sessions trying cases without a jury or without the aid of assessors and were also empowered to pass upon the persons convicted by them of any offence any sentence authorised by law for the punishment of such offences. The powers of appeal and revision vested in the High Court were to be exercised as if the Courts of Special Judges were the courts of Sessions trying cases without a jury or without the aid of assessors within the local limits of the Jurisdiction of the High Court. The procedure for trial before the Special Judges was thus assimilated to that obtaining in the case of trial of the accused by the courts of sessions. ( 5 ) IT is true as mentioned above, that in the revised charge sheet submitted in January 1980 by the investigating agency a reference to the offence under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not appear. The offence thereunder was referred to specifically, however, in the earlier charge sheet submitted in August/september, 1977 by the investigating agency in addition to offence under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 or 120b Penal Code. The brief narration of the facts claimed to be discovered in the course of the investigation also appears in both the sets of the charge sheets. From a perusal thereof it would appear that the respondent-accused is alleged to have made gain for self or his father J. P. Srivastava or others by resorting to fictitious entries on the credit/debit sides in various accounts maintained at the Bank. Under Section 5 (l) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act a public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct if be dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates/or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do. Under Section 5 (l) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act a public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct if be dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates/or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do. The court will look to the pith and substance of the nature of accusation made against the respondent and not the mere factum thereof. The omission of Section 5 (2), Prevention of Corruption Act is rendered immaterial if on the contents of what is actually stated the nature or character of the offence alleged is not altered. ( 6 ) LEANED Chief Judicial Magistrate appears to have acted as he did under the impression that since the witnesses examined before him had resiled and did not state that there was deposit made by them with the respondent, there was no prima facie case appearing to be made out for offence under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It should not have been overlooked that in view of the scheme underlying the provisions of this Act, the jurisdiction to weigh and conclude with respect to the guilt or otherwise vests in the Special Judge to the exclusion of all other courts and therefore, it was not upto the Chief Judicial Magistrate to arrive at any finding on this score. For purposes of determining the limited question before the Chief Judicial Magistrate whether the jurisdiction was of the Special Judge, it was not required of him to have gone into the merits even prima facie of the evidence recorded. The averments contained in the charge sheets should have been taken as the criteria in deciding the applications made by the Bank; all that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had to be was to see whether on a perusal of the charge sheet the case had to go before the special Judge, It was not open to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to launch a process of satisfying himself that a prima facie case had been made out on the merits. The view taken that the cases might be sent to the Special Judge if it appeared subsequently in the course of evidence that there is offence committed under Section 5 (2), Prevention of Corruption Act is unsustainable. The view taken that the cases might be sent to the Special Judge if it appeared subsequently in the course of evidence that there is offence committed under Section 5 (2), Prevention of Corruption Act is unsustainable. ( 7 ) THERE is no difference caused on the ground that the offences under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 or 120 B Penal Code are also imputed against the respondent. Sub-Section 3 of Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952 expressly lays down that a Special Judge may also try any offence other than an offence specified in Section 6 with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, be charged at the same trial. The allegation in the charge sheets is that these offences were committed by the respondent in course of the same transaction. The law is settled in view of these statutory provisions that though the Special Judge has jurisdiction which he is competent to exercise under the Prevention of Corruption Act or the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1952, still as provided under Section 7 (3) referred to above, he can try a case for offences under Sections 120- B, 466, 467, 420 Penal Code also vide: The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kandimalla Subbaiah and another2, Union of India v. I. C. Lala etc. 3 ( 8 ) THE United Commercial Bank is of course not the competent. But for reasons obvious it has a vital interest in the matter. The interest is that the trial takes place by a court of competent jurisdiction. Upon the relevant facts brought to notice by the Bank, it may not be doubted that the Chief Judicial Magistrate could take due notice thereof. ( 9 ) IN the light of the discussion made above, I am clearly of opinion that approach adopted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in these matters cannot be upheld. The applications are allowed. The impugned orders made by the Chief Judicial Magistrate are set aside. The cases in question shall stand transferred to the Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Jhansi for trial in accordance with law. ( 10 ) CERTIFIED copy of this judgment will issue within three days on payment of necessary charges. Applications allowed. .