Judgment Surinder Sarup, J. 1. This application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order, dated 10th June, 1991, passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I. Dhanbad, taking cognizance for the offence under Sec. 400 IPC and Sec. 13(2) read with Session 13(1)(c) of the of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in R.C. Case No. 36/89. 2. According to the F. I. R., certified copy of which is on the record of this case the place of occurrence is Howrah (West Bengal). This F.I.R. complaint was, therefore, lodged before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta by Opp. Party No.2. After this charge-sheet was received in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, the Investigating Officer, C.B.L filed an application praying therein that the case should be transferred to the court of the Special Judge, C.B.L at Dhanbad. 3. These facts are not disputed in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the opp. parties in the present application. It is also not disputed in the counter affidavit that on the basis of the said application for transfer, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, transferred the case to the court of the Special Judge, C.B.L, Dhanbad. In Paragraph 13 of the counter-affidavit, it has been admitted that there is some technical irregularity/illegality in transferring the case from the court at Calcutta to the court at Dhanbad. In the said paragraph, it has been stated that the defect may be cured by sending the record of this case to the court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, so that the case may tried in accordance with law. 4. Thus it is clear from the undisputed facts referred to above, that the impugned order, dated 10th June, 1991, passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad is illegal and without jurisdiction. 5. On behalf of the opp. parties, their learned counsel Sri. P.P.N. Roy, has submitted that, notwithstanding, the undisputed facts, the prosecution of the petitioner should not (sic) to support of his submission, he has cited State of U.P. V/s. Kailash Nath Jhakar Ahir V/s. Province of Bihar, Nishan Singh Harnam Singh V/s. The State, and Sita Ram Singh & Ors. V/s. State of Bihar & Ors.4. All these rulings are distinguishable on facts insofar as the present case is concerned. 6. V/s. State of Bihar & Ors.4. All these rulings are distinguishable on facts insofar as the present case is concerned. 6. For the reasons recorded above, this application is allowed, the impugned order, dated 10th June, 1991, and the entire proceedings in R.C. Case No. 36/89, pending before the Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad are hereby quashed.