NRIPENDRA KUMAR BHATTACHARYYA, J. ( 1 ) BY these 4 revisions the accused has challenged the order of taking cognizance passed by the learned Judge, Calcutta, 3rd Special Court, by order No. 1, dated 27-6-94 in 4 cases, namely Case. No. 9 to Case No. 12 of 1994. ( 2 ) ACCORDINGLY, 4 revision cases have beenmoved challenging order No. 1, dated 27-6-94 passed by the learned Judge, Calcutta, 3rd Special Court, in those 4 cases and as the 4 revision cases, being Criminal Revision Case No. 455 to 458 of 1995, invoke the similar question of law, these 4 cases have been taken up together and disposed of by this judgment. ( 3 ) THE short fact leading to the cases are that on the ground of criminal breach of trust by the petitioner in disbursing the salary of the staff of Home Department for the period from March, 1987 to September, 1990 involving an amount of Rs. 1,21,372. 19 and for the month of August, 1990 regarding discrepancy of an amount of Rs. 5,625. 10, four F. I. R. were lodged and the matters were assigned or REFERRED TO by the Government to the Court of Judge, 3rd Special Court, Calcutta and 4 cases have been registered in the said Court being Case Nos. 9 to 12 of 1994 and in the said 4 cases by Order No. 1, dated 276-94 the learned Special Judge took cognizance in the said four cases upon the charge-sheet submitted for an offence under S. 409 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons. The said order of taking cognizance is the subject-matter of challenge in the four revision cases. ( 4 ) ON a common ground the order of taking cognizance in the said four cases by the learned Judge, has been challenged. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Sanyal, the Special Judge being appointed by notification u/s. 2 of West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1949 for trying the offences mentioned in that Act is not competent to try the offence or to take cognizance under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which Act came into force in the year, 1988. ( 6 ) IT was contended that the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act. ( 6 ) IT was contended that the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act. 1952, a Central Act, came into force and Section 6 of that Act provided for appointment of Special Judge for trying the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. ( 7 ) BY introduction of S. 13 in the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1949 there was virtual exclusion of application of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952 and that had prevented the application of the said Act in West Bengal. So no Judge was appointed under S. 6 of 1952 Act and the old appointment of the Judges of the Special Court by notification under S. 2 of the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1949 continued. ( 8 ) THE Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 a Central Act, came into force in 1988. By that Act and particularly under S. 13 of that Act the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952, stood repealed. ( 9 ) A conjoint reading of Ss. 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 clearly indicates that an offence punishable under the Act, 1988 can be tried only by a Special Judge appointed under S. 3 of the said Act and not by any other Court, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. ( 10 ) SECTION 26 of 1988 Act protects the appointment of Special Judges who were earlier appointed Special Judges under S. 6 of the 1952 Act. ( 11 ) THAT protection has not been extended to the appointment of Special Judges appointed by a notification under S. 2 of the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1949. ( 12 ) SECTION 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 clearly expressed that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure or in any other law for the time being in force the offences under the said Act shall be tried by Special Judges only and the term 'special Judges' is in reference of S. 4 of 1988 Act, meaning the Special Judges who have been appointed under S. 3 of that Act or whose appointment under the repealed Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952 has been protected under S. 26 of the 1988 Act. ( 13 ) IT has further been contended that S. 8 of the General Clauses Act cannot override a Constitutional Provision namely Art. 254 of the Constitution of India. ( 14 ) 1988 Act being a Central Legislation and subject-matter relates to concurrent list of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India which was enacted by the Parliament will prevail and have an overriding effect over any existing provision of the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1949 in case of conflict or militancy between them irrespective of the fact whether the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1949 had received the assent of the President earlier. ( 15 ) THIS point has already been decided earlier by two decisions of this Court in the case of H. D. Barman v. CBI/spe/cal. through the State of West Bengal, reported in (1993) 2 Cal HN 141 and also in the case of J. N. Dum v. CBI through the State of west Bengal, reported in (1995) 2 Cal HN 113, where in it has been held that taking cognizance of an offence under 1988 Act by a Special Judge appointed by notification u/s. 2 of West Bengal special Courts Act, 1949 is not permissible under the law and such an order of taking cognizance is bad, illegal and without jurisdiction. ( 16 ) AS this is the settled law now I am of the opinion and view that the order of taking cognizance by the impugned orders by the Special Judge are bad, illegal and without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained in law. ( 17 ) MR. Chaitanya Chandra Mukherjee, the learned advocate for CBI has taken a further point that by Notification No. 6614-J the Government of west Bengal has appointed the Special Judges under Sub-Section (2) of Section 2 read with Sub-Section (1) of S. 9 of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 (West Bengal Act XXI of 1949, as amended, and functioning as such Judges as Special Judges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) for the purpose of trial of offences as enumerated in cls. (a) and (b) of Sub-Section (1) of S. 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 that has been done in exercise of a power conferred by Sub-Section (1) of S. 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as such taking cognizance of an offence by such Judge is protected. ( 18 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Mukherjee as by the notification the appointment of Special Judges, who were appointed by the notification u/s. 2 of the West Bengal Special courts Act, 1949 and under Sub-Section (1) of S. 9 of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949, and functioning as such are protected and empowered to try the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. ( 19 ) I find no justification in the submission of Mr. Mukherjee inasmuch as by the notification in effect retrospective operation of S. 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1982, the appointment of the Special Judge under S. 2 of 1949 Act is sought to be regularised by introduction of S. 3 of the 1988 Act with retrospective effect is illegal and not permissible under the law. ( 20 ) THE same could have been done by a Central legislation and not by notification. Notification cannot override the provisions of the law. Notification is nothing but a fiat and the fiat cannot override the law. That is the settled principle of law and as such I overrule the contention of Mr. Chaitanya Chandra Mukherjee. ( 21 ) I, accordingly, allow the revisions and quash the orders impugned and the proceedings. Revision allowed.