JUDGMENT : 1. We have heard Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the appellants at length. His submissions are two. His first submission is that the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 read along with the provisions of the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 indicate that the sitting Judge of the High Court nominated to constitute the Special Court under Section 5(2) of the latter Act should be a Judge who has functioned earlier as a Sessions Judge, if offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act are also included in the charge for which the accused is being tried. He contends that in the present case the learned High Court Judge but a Judge drawn from the Bar and, therefore, his appointment is not in accordance with law. His other submission is that the definition of 'securities' given in Section 2(c) of the 1992 Act does not include a bill of exchange and, therefore, the draft charge framed against the appellants does not come within the definition of 'securities' in Section 2(c) of the Act. 2. We are not impressed by the first submission of Shri Shanti Bhushan. In our considered opinion, the requirement of Section 5(2) of the 1992 Act alone governess the constitution of the Special Court under that Act which is reinforced by Section 7 thereof. This contention has no merit. 3. As for the other submission of Shri Shanti Bhushan, we do not consider it appropriate to go into that question at this stage since that is related also to the evidence required to be adduced at the trial. That question is, therefore, left open for consideration at the appropriate stage after the trial has concluded. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.