JUDGMENT : V. Gopalaswamy, J. - This revision is preferred by the accused in ICC No. 84 of 1982 against the order of the learned S.D.J.M. Gunupur, taking cognisance against him u/s 161, I.P.C. as well. 2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner raised two contentions: First, as the alleged offence is u/s 161, I.P.C. the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognisance of that offence in view of the provisions of Section 6(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short, 'P.C. Act') read with the provisions of the Criminal law Amendment Act, 1952. Secondly, even if cognisance of the offence the Magistrate had jurisdiction to take u/s 161, I.P.C., he could not have taken the cognisance without prior sanction u/s 6(1) of the P.C. Act in view of the bar under that section. 3. In relation to the first point, the learned Additional Government Advocate relied on a Division Bench decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Pancham Singh Vs. The State. In that decision it was held that there is no provision in the Crimiml law Amendment Act to support the view that, in a case triable by a Special Judge, a Magistrate is not competent to take cognisance of an offence in accordance with Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, however, does not indicate that a Magistrate should not take cognisance u/s 190 of the Code in respect of offences of which cognisance may be taken by a Special Judge. Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure require; the Investigating Officer to submit his report in the final form a Magistrate empowered to take cognisance of the offence on, a police report. No amendment was made in this section, providing that the Investigating Officer should submit a report to a Special Judge instead of Magistrate. Section 190 empowers some classes of Magistrates to take cognisance of certain offences upon a report made by any police officer u/s 173. This section was also not amended so as to indicate that the Magistrates mentioned in this section cannot take cognisance of any offence triable by a Special Judge upon a police report. Section 8(1) of the Crimiml Law Amendment Act merely provides that the Special Judge may take cognisance of an offence without any commitment proceeding. This section was also not amended so as to indicate that the Magistrates mentioned in this section cannot take cognisance of any offence triable by a Special Judge upon a police report. Section 8(1) of the Crimiml Law Amendment Act merely provides that the Special Judge may take cognisance of an offence without any commitment proceeding. This provision was, however, not meant to restrict the powers of a Magistrate u/s 190 of the Code. 4. Section 7(1) of the Criminal law Amendment Act provides: 7. Cases triable by special Judges. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, or in any other law the offences specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 6 shall be triable by Special Judges only (Underlining is mine) Under Section 7(1) of the Criminal law Amendment Act the exclusive jurisdiction given to the Special Judge is only as regards the trial of the offence As regards jurisdiction to take cognisance of the offence, Section 8 no doubt conferred the same on the Special Judge, but did not-make it the exclusive jurisdiction of the Special Judge. Therefore, so far a, the taking of cognisance of the offence is concerned, a Magistrate as well as the Special Judge can take cognisance of the offence. (See Fedders Lioyd Corporation (P) Ltd v. B.A. Lakshminarayana Swamy and Anr. AIR 1909 Del 26, a Division Bench decision of the Delhi High Court). 5. From the above referred decisions it is clear that the Magistrate is not deprived of his power to take cognisance of an offence u/s 190, Code of Criminal Procedure even where the offence is exclusively triable by a Special judge. 6. So the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence u/s 151, I.P.C. is not legally tenable. 7. So far as the second point is concerned, Section 6(1) of the P.C. Act expressly provides that no Court shall take cognisance of an offence u/s 161, I.P.C. alleged to have been committed by a public servant except with the previous sanction under that Section. The Petitioner is admittedly a public servant. So the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognisance of the offence u/s 161, I.P.C. without previous sanction u/s 6(1) of the P.C. Act must be upheld. 8. The Petitioner is admittedly a public servant. So the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognisance of the offence u/s 161, I.P.C. without previous sanction u/s 6(1) of the P.C. Act must be upheld. 8. In the result, it is only that part of the impugned order relating to the taking of cognisance of the offence u/s 161, P.C. is quashed and to that extent the revision is allowed. However, the trial Court should proceed with the trial of the case against the Petitioner regarding the other offences alleged against him. Revision allowed in part. Final Result : Allowed