PALOK BASU, J. Salyendra Babu Ag nihotri has filed this petition which pur ports to be under Section 482 Cr. P. C. containing the following prayer: "the proceedings of the criminal case No. 10 of 1998, R. C. 32 (A)/96, Lucknow under Sections 120- B/420/467/468/471, I. P. C and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (2), 13 (1) (d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 pending in the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (West) U. P. Lucknow be quashed and non- bailable warrant issued against the applicant be also quashed. " 2. Sri Nandit Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant has been heard at length who has argued the matter with ability. In opposition Shri Vireshwar Naths Government Advocate assisted by Shri A. K. Srivastava, Special Counsel for C. B. I. , has been heard. 3. In order to appreciate the argu ments only two facts need to be stated. First, in one of the Government depart ments known as Ayurveda and Unani Department under the Medical and Health Ministry of the State of U. P. there was alleged embezzlement by withdrawing excess amount without there being any budgetary allotment in the year 1993-94 which tentatively has been estimated by the audit report to be of about Rs. 48 crores. Second, the matter was made sub ject matter of an F. I. R. lodged by Yash-verdhan Sinha, (a Secretary in that depart ment) which was lodged at P. S. Kotwali Hazratganj, Lucknow which covered the entire gamut of the embezzlement/illegal withdrawals. Having noticed this huge em bezzlement through a writ petition and further that the matters importance was being apparently ignored, the State Government was asked by this Court as to why the matter should not be investigated by the C. B. I. Thereafter, by a notification of Lie State Government the entire inves tigation has been handed over to the C. B. I. After due investigation the parent or the principal charge-sheet in this case has been filed being numbered as 1 of 1997 in the Court of Special Judge (Centre), Luck-now. This has been followed by several supplementary charge-sheets relating to various accused posted differently at dif ferent places. One such supplementary charge-sheet making the applicant also an accused, is the subject matter of this 482 application. 4. This has been followed by several supplementary charge-sheets relating to various accused posted differently at dif ferent places. One such supplementary charge-sheet making the applicant also an accused, is the subject matter of this 482 application. 4. The applicant Satyendra Babu Ag nihotri alleges to have been in the employ ment of the State Government, having been posted as Regional Ayurvedic and Unani Officer, Lucknow in the year 1993 and set averments in para 8of the petition. 5. In the State of U. P. , the State Government has admittedly appointed three Special Judges in the State of U. P. The territorial jurisdiction of those three Judges has been notified by relevant notifications of the State Government as under: (1) Special Judge (Centre), Lucknow having jurisdiction for districts Lucknow, Kanpur City and Kanpur Dehat. (2) Special Judge (West), Lucknow having territorial jurisdiction over 37 districts. (3) Special Judge (East), Dehradun having territorial jurisdiction over the remaining districts of the State of U. P. 6. The applicant moved an applica tion challenging the aforesaid supplemen tary charge-sheet making hinfalso an ac cused, on the following three grounds: (i) Cognizance cannot be taken by the Special Judge (West), Lucknow because cog nizance could have been taken only by the Spe cial Judge (Centre), Lucknow. (ii) The District Judge, Lucknow had no power to transfer the case No. 1 of 1997 from the Court of Special Judge (Centre), Lucknow to the Court of Special Judge (West), Lucknow. (iii) The applicant could not have been proceeded with through the instant charge-sheet which should be taken by an independent charge-sheet and not a supplementary charge-sheet. 7. The Special Judge (West), Luck-now heard the counsel for the C. B. I and Shri Nandit Srivastavaand he passed a well reasoned order running into six closely typed pages and rejected the arguments of the applicant. Shri Nandit Srivastava who had appeared for the accused before the trial Court has also argued the same points before this Court with ability. Shri Viresh-war Nath has vehemently opposed the arguments raised by the accused counsel. 8. As already noted have, in this case the C. B. I. has filed the principal charge-sheet against 7 accused persons which in cluded the then concerned Cabinet Mini ster of the State of U. P. and I. A. S. Officer, the then Secretary of the Department. Shri Viresh-war Nath has vehemently opposed the arguments raised by the accused counsel. 8. As already noted have, in this case the C. B. I. has filed the principal charge-sheet against 7 accused persons which in cluded the then concerned Cabinet Mini ster of the State of U. P. and I. A. S. Officer, the then Secretary of the Department. The two principal accused specified above, raised some objections in the Court of Special Judge (Centre) with regard to cog nizance. In due course the Special Judge seems to have been made some requests for security i. e. in order to protect himself while going ahead with the principal charge-sheet. The accused then raised ob jections about fair trial in this case before the said Special Judge (Centre), Lucknow, by filing an application under Section 408, Cr. P. C. for transfer of the case to another Court, before the District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow. The Sessions Judge al lowed the transfer application and directed the said case i. e. No. 1 of 1997, i. e. the principal charge-sheet case to be trans ferred from the Court of Special Judge (Centre), Lucknow to the Court of Special Judge (West), Lucknow. This judicial order is in vogue till date and has thus conferred jurisdiction on the Special Judge (West), Lucknow. It is further ad mitted fact that 10 supplementary charge-sheets had been filed in the meantime by the C. B. I. , in which various other accused have been nominated on the strength of material collected from further investiga tions which have all been transferred by the order of the District Judge to the Court of Special Judge (West), Lucknow. (see averments made in para No. 9 of the ap plication/affidavit ). This has been done apparently because the principal charge-sheet case had already been transferred to Special Judge (West), Lucknow by a trans fer order passed by Sessions Judge on the judicial side. 9. (see averments made in para No. 9 of the ap plication/affidavit ). This has been done apparently because the principal charge-sheet case had already been transferred to Special Judge (West), Lucknow by a trans fer order passed by Sessions Judge on the judicial side. 9. It was pointed by Shri Vireshwar Nath, Government Advocate that all these ten supplementary charge-sheets were in fact, filed by the C. B. I. before the Special Judge (Centre), Lucknow and since the principal case was transferred by the judi cial order of District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow from the Court of Special Judge (Centre), Lucknow to the Court of Special Judge (West), Lucknow, the Sessions Judge transferred these ten supplemen tary charge-sheets also to the Court of Special Judge (West), Lucknow. Both these Special Judges at Lucknow are of the rank of Additional Sessions Judge. It was further pointed out that several remand files of accused in other supplementary charge-sheets have also been transferred in the meantime by the District and Ses sions Judge from the Court of Special Judge (Centre) to the Court of Special Judge (West), Lucknow. In fact, it is admitted to Shri Nandit Srivastyva himself and is mentioned in the impugned order that one remanded file relating to one of the accused in the instant supplementary charge-sheet namely Dr. Singh of Azamgarh, was already transferred by the Sessions Judge to the Court of Special Judge (West), Lucknow. 10. In view of what has been stated above there is absolutely no force in any of the arguments raised by Shri Nandit Srivastava. Cognizance of the entire case through the parent or the principal charge-sheet has been taken initially by the competent Court which has been trans ferred by a judicial order of the Sessions Judge, Lucknow inasmuch as supplemen tary charge-sheet matters filed till then before Special Judge (Centre) Lucknow have also been transferred bv the Sessions Judge to the Court of special Judge (West), Lucknow. Filing of a supplemen tary charge-shed in ihe parent case does not amount to seeking cognizance for a different offence. It is only when some dif ferent offender may come to light during investigation that supplementary charge-sheets are filed for trial of those accused also with the accused who are nominated in the principal charge- sheet. Filing of a supplemen tary charge-shed in ihe parent case does not amount to seeking cognizance for a different offence. It is only when some dif ferent offender may come to light during investigation that supplementary charge-sheets are filed for trial of those accused also with the accused who are nominated in the principal charge- sheet. The Honble Supreme Court has settled the law once for all that the Courts take cognizance of the offence and not the offenders. 11. The judicial order of the Distric Judge passed under Section 408, Cr. P. C. transferring the principal charge-sheet case and the subsequent supplementary charge-sheets from the Court of Special Judge (Centre), Lucknow to the Court of Special Judge (West), Lucknow permitted and authorised under the law. Consequently the CB. I. was withinits rights to file a supplemen tary charge-sheet relating to the applicant so in the Court of Special Judge (West), Luck-now, which was and is seized with the case as the principal charge-sheet is pending in this Court for trial according to law. The learned trial Judge has rightly rejected the application for the applicant. 12. No other point has been argued. 13. The application consequently fails and is hereby dismissed with the direc tions that all steps should be taken forthwith to arrest the offenders. Application dismissed. .