Judgment 1. Petitioner No. 1 is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the Directors and the said company. For the failure of the company and its directors to file the necessary returns under Sections 159, 160 and 161 of the Act, the Registrar of Companies, Bihar, respondent No. 3 herein, filed a complaint on 10-2-1992, before the Presiding Officer, Special Court (Economic Offences) at Muzaffarpur, against the petitioners, which he was authorised to do under Section 162 (1) of the Act. The Special Court took cognizance of the offence on the 11th of February, 1992 and issued process against the petitioners. It is not disputed before us that the Presiding Officer of the Special Court (Economic Offences) is vested with the powers of a Magistrate of the 1st class. 2. The instant writ petition was filed before this Court relying upon Section 10 of the Act and it was submitted that under sub-section (2) of the Section 10, unless the Central Government by notification in the official Gazette empowers the District Court to exercise any of the jurisdiction conferred by the Act upon the Court, the District Court cannot exercise the jurisdiction conferred by the Act upon the Court. It was, therefore, submitted that unless the Central Governments conferred such jurisdiction upon the Special Courts (Economic Offences), the Special Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Counsel for the Union of India submits that this submission has no legal basis since the Special Court had ample jurisdiction to deal with offences against the Act under Section 622 of the Act read with Section 621 thereof. 3. The submission urged on behalf of the Union of India must prevail. Section 10 of the Act deals with the jurisdiction conferred upon the Court by the Act. Wherever such jurisdiction is conferred upon a Court, it is the High Court having jurisdiction in relation to the place at which the registered office of the Company is situate, which has authority to exercise such jurisdiction, unless such jurisdiction is also conferred upon the District Court in regard to matters falling within the scope of jurisdiction conferred in respect of companies having their registered office in the district. Section 10 (2) is an enabling provision which enables the Central Government to confer such jurisdiction upon the District Court by issuance of a notification as provided under Section 10 (2) of the Act. In the instant case, we are not concerned with the jurisdiction conferred upon the Court under the Act. We are only concerned with the offences committed against the Act, and the forum for its trial. Conferment of special jurisdiction under the Act is a matter quite distinct from the trial of offences against the Act, and therefore, the Act contains separate provisions for both. The relevant sections dealing with offences against the Act are Sections 621 and 622 of the Act. Under Section 621, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence against the Act which is alleged to have been committed by any Company, or any officer thereof, except on the complaint in writing of the Registrar, or of a shareholder of the Company, or of a person authorised in that behalf. Under Section 622, no Court inferior to that of a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence against the Act. In this case, the complaint has been lodged in writing by the Registrar of Companies, and cognizance has been taken by the Special Court which exercises all powers vested in a Magistrate of the first class. We, therefore, find no reason to quash the order taking cognizance, and the proceeding, which we are told has since been transferred to the Special Court (Economic Offences) at Patna. In this view of the matter, there is also no substance in the challenge to the notification issued by the State Government constituting the Special Court, Economic Offence, at Muzaffarpur, and other places subsequently, because the ground on which the constitution of the Special Courts is challenged is that such Special Court in order to try offences under the Companies Act must be constituted only by the Central Government under Section 10 (2) of the Act. As we have found, it is not necessary that the Special Court should be constituted by the Central Government since Section 10 (2) is wholly inapplicable to a case of this nature, where the Company and its Directors are sought to be prosecuted for offences against the Companies Act. 4. We, therefore, find no merit in this writ petitions and the same is accordingly dismissed.