JUDGEMENT 1. Both Cr.W.J.C. No. 593 of 2008 as well as Cr.W.J.C. No. 596 of 2008 are taken up together, as both the writ petitions arise out of the Vigilance P.S. Case No. 19 of 2005, dated 12.12.2005, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 201 and 120B of the Penal Code read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 bearing Special P.S. Case No. 30 of 2005. 2. The petitioners seek for quashing of entire criminal proceeding pending before the Special Judge, Vigilance-I, Patna in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 19 of 2005 as well as order dated 15.5.2008 taking cognizance of offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 201 and 120B of the Penal Code and Section 10 of the Bihar Examination Conduct Act, 1981. The petitioners have further prayed to declare that their names have been illegally included in the charge sheets. 3. The petitioners have sought quashing of the criminal prosecution on the ground that the learned Special Judge, Vigilance lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of offence under Penal Code or other law, without taking cognizance of offence under the P.C. Act first. 4. The petitioners are Class-Ill employees in the services of the Government of Bihar. The Bihar Public Service Commission published an advertisement bearing no. 4/93 for appointment to the post of Bihar Administrative Service from limited examination amongst the employees of the Government. The petitioners were selected in the examination and their names were recommended for the appointment to the post of Deputy Collector. In the meantime complaints were received about bungling in the selection process which led to an enquiry by the Cabinet Vigilance Investigation Bureau. 5. In view of the enquiry report, a case was instituted against the Chairman and 11 other employees of the Bihar Public Service Commission, being Vigilance P. S. Case No. 19/05, dated 29.12.2005, both under the Penal Code as well as Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 6. The involvement of petitioners also came to light and consequently charge- sheets both under the Penal Code, the Prevention of Corruption Act, as well as Bihar Examination Conduct Act, 1981 , were submitted. 6. The involvement of petitioners also came to light and consequently charge- sheets both under the Penal Code, the Prevention of Corruption Act, as well as Bihar Examination Conduct Act, 1981 , were submitted. Charge-sheet No. 30/08 dated 12.5.2008, pertained to the petitioners of Cr.W.J.C. No. 593 of 2008 and Charge- sheet No. 2/08, dated 11.2.2009, was submitted in respect of sole petitioner of Cr.W.J.C. No. 596 of 2008. 7. On the basis of the charge-sheets, the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, by order dated 15.5.2008, took cognizance of offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 201/120B of the Penal Code and Section 10 of the Bihar Examination Conduct Act, 1981 against them. However, the court observed that the cognizance of offence under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act shall be taken on receipt of sanction order against the petitioners and other concerned accused persons. 8. The petitioners have raised following points before this court. A Judge under the Special Act is a Judge first to try cases falling under the Prevention of Corruption Act and then under other offences. In other words, a Special Judge without taking cognizance under the Prevention of Corruption Act, cannot try any other offence other than the offence specified under Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Secondly, there was no sufficient material for submitting charge sheet under the aforesaid offences. In support of their contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon decisions reported in the case of (i) State through C.B.I. Vs. R.K. Jain, (1998)6 S.C.C. 551 ; (ii) Dilawar Singh Vs. Parvinder Singh @ Ekbal Singh and Another, (2005)7 S.C.C. 524 ; (iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Another, 2008(7) Supreme Today 663; (iv) Jasbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2006 (7) Supreme Today 646; and (v) Pepsi Foods Limited and Another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998)5 S.C.C. 749 . 9. Learned counsel for the Vigilance submits that the instant writ petition is not maintainable in view of the decision of this court dated 25.9.2006, in the case of Dr. Ram Singhasan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 25576 of 2006, heard analogous with other cases contained in Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. He submits that the investigation reveals large canvass of embezzlement and manipulation in the process of recommendation for selection. Ram Singhasan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 25576 of 2006, heard analogous with other cases contained in Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. He submits that the investigation reveals large canvass of embezzlement and manipulation in the process of recommendation for selection. lagre scale of tampering in the answer books of Paper-ll was also noticed in tests conducted by the Forensic Laboratory. He submits that even forged documents were planted and an enquiry report showed gross irregularity and illegality. According to him, there was a sufficient material in case diary for proceeding against the petitioners. 10. He stated that initially on the basis of the enquiry report, Vigilance P.S. Case No. 19 of 2005, was registered against the Ex-Chairman of Bihar Public Sen/ice Commission and 11 other employees/persons, both under the Penal Code and under the Prevention of Corruption Act. In course of investigation, the petitioners were also found to be involved in the act of tampering of answer books and other offences and as such their name were included in charge- sheets and thus the impugned order of Special Judge does not suffer from any illegality. 11. Having heard counsel for the parties, the first issue to be considered is whether the Investigating Agency was justified in including the name of the petitioners in the column of accused in the charge- sheet. Charge-sheet revealed large scale of erasings and tampering in the answer books. It further unfurled that petitioners in conspiracy with the officials and members of the Bihar Public Service Commission committed criminal misconduct by resorting to corrupt means to secure undue gain. 12. The decision relied in the case of Pepsi Foods Limited and Another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others, reported in (1998)5 SCC 749 , would be of no help to the petitioners in view of the materials and allegations against them in the charge-sheet. In the aforesaid case, the Honble Apex Court observed that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and it cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. In the aforesaid case, the Honble Apex Court observed that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and it cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The order taking cognizance must reflect that the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts and law of a case and also to examine the nature of allegation in complaint and evidence both oral and documentary to come to a judicial satisfaction that material are sufficient for bringing home the charge. The charge-sheet reveals that in course of investigation various materials came to light which pointed the involvement of the petitioners in the aforesaid offence, both under Penal Code, Examination Conduct Act as well as Prevention of Corruption Act. As such this court holds that the claim of the petitioners that there was no basis for including their names in the charge-sheet and there is no sufficient material for taking cognizance under Penal Code and Section 10 of the Bihar Examination Conduct Act, 1981 is devoid of any merit. 13. So far as maintainability of this writ petition is concerned, the decision referred to by learned counsel for the Vigilance, as contained in Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, would not be very relevant, save and except as referred later on. The Ex-Chairman and two members of the Public Service Commission had challenged the order taking cognizance under Sections 420, 467, 120B and other Sections of the Penal Code, as well as under Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. They had pleaded that cognizance of offence under the Penal Code was taken without sanction, secondly the sanction accorded by the Governor of Bihar under the Prevention of Corruption Act is not valid in the eyes of law. This court rejected both the pleas of the petitioners observing that in appropriate case sanction under the Penal Code can be taken at any stage, depending upon the facts of the case. This Court further observed that the plea of quashing the prosecution on ground of invalid sanction was also not tenable in law. 14. This court rejected both the pleas of the petitioners observing that in appropriate case sanction under the Penal Code can be taken at any stage, depending upon the facts of the case. This Court further observed that the plea of quashing the prosecution on ground of invalid sanction was also not tenable in law. 14. The issue involved in this case is different than one that was raised in the aforesaid cases of former Chairman and members of B.P.S.C. The petitioners in this case have not made challenge to cognizance on the ground that the same is invalid for want of sanction, rather their main case is that a Special Judge can take cognizance under the Penal Code without taking cognizance under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 15. The relevant provisions for consideration would be Sections 3 and 4(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act which are quoted herein belowfor ready reference:- "3. Power to appoint special Judges.-(1) The Central Government or the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint as many special Judges as may be necessary for such area or areas or for such case or group of cases as may be specified by the notification to try the following offences, namely.- (a) any offence punishable under this Act; and (b) any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to commit or any abetment of any of the offences specified in clause (a). (2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Special Judge under this Act unless he is or has been a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 Of 1974). 4. Cases triable by Special Judges.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or in any other law for the time being in force, the offences specified in sub-section (1) of Section 3 shall , be tried by Special Judges only. (2) xx xx xx xx xx (3) When trying any case, a special Judge may also try any offence, other than an offence specified in Section 3, with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1972) be charged at the same trial." 16. (2) xx xx xx xx xx (3) When trying any case, a special Judge may also try any offence, other than an offence specified in Section 3, with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1972) be charged at the same trial." 16. Section 3 refers to power of Central and State Government to appoint Special Judges for trying any offence under this Act or any conspiracy to commit or to attempt to commit or any abetment of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 17. Section 4(1) starts with non- obstante clause stating that only Special Judge appointed under this Act will try cases relating to the Prevention of Corruption Act. Section 4(3) provides that a Special Judge while trying a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act may try offences other than ones specified in Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In other words, a Special Judge would be competent to try a case of P.C. Act as well as offences under other Acts and provisions. 18. It would appear from the conjoint reading of the provisions that Special Judge first of all, is necessarily to be seized with an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. A case under the Prevention of Corruption Act has been ousted from jurisdiction of general Magistrate under the Code and only Special Judge appointed under the Prevention of Corruption Act has been conferred to try these cases. In the instant case, about 109 persons have been made accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Penal Code as well as under the Bihar Examination Conduct Act. In respect of some of the accused sanction has been obtained under the P.C: Act from the appropriate authority. Charge-sheet has been submitted both under Prevention of Corruption Act, Penal Code, Bihar Examination Conduct Act, 1981 against the petitioners. The Special Judge while taking cognizance under Penal Code and Bihar Examination Conduct Act, 1981 observed that the court will take cognizance only after receipt of sanction, which is mandatory. 19. The contention of the petitioners that before taking cognizance under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the court could not have proceeded against them under the Penal Code or Bihar Examination Conduct Act is devoid of merit in the facts of this case. 20. 19. The contention of the petitioners that before taking cognizance under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the court could not have proceeded against them under the Penal Code or Bihar Examination Conduct Act is devoid of merit in the facts of this case. 20. In the instant case charge-sheet has been submitted against 109 accused, who are all Government employees, officials and members of Public Service Commission, both under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Penal Code and the Bihar Examination Conduct Act. Furthermore, cognizance has already been taken under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Penal Code against Ex-Chairman, other members and employees of the Commission. A quashing application preferred by some members of Commission challenging order taking cognizance has also failed. 21. The provision does not visualize that Special Judge in case of each and every accused has to take cognizance first under the Prevention of Corruption Act and then only he can proceed or would be competent to take cognizance under the Penal Code or other offences other than one specified in Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 22. The aforesaid inference is evident from the very opening word of sub-section (3) of Section 4, which begins with the sentence "when trying any case, a special Judge may also try any offence, other than an offence specified in Section 3....." 23. The emphasis is more on word "case" and not individual accused and various offences with which he may be charged. Section 3 provides that the "case" must relate to offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act or conspiracy to commit or attempt to commit or abetment of such offence. 24. Once the Special Judge takes cognizance of offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, he assumes jurisdiction to try offence, other than one specified under Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The provision of Section 4(3) further provides that accused in the same trial can be charged with other offences also Section 220 of Cr.P.C. provides for one trial for more than one offence, if it is committed in the same transaction. 25. The Special Judge has already taken cognizance of offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act against some of the accused earlier in the year 2006. 25. The Special Judge has already taken cognizance of offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act against some of the accused earlier in the year 2006. The court as such has derived jurisdiction in the case, to try other offences of same accused, and other accused also under different Acts by virtue of Section 4(3) of the Act. 26. Section 223 of Cr.P.C. relates to persons who may be charged jointly. Once disability under Section 19 of the P.C. Act is displaced by grant of sanction to an accused, the Special Judge can proceed in the case and can charge persons accused of offences provided therein under Section 223 Cr.P.C. with the only limitation and rider that it will not proceed under P. C Act against accused, in respect of whom sanction is awaited. For the purpose of this case, Sections 223(b) & (d) are relevant provision and quoted below:- "223. What persons may be charged jointly.-The following persons may be charged and tried together, namely- (a) xx xx xx xx (b) persons accused of an offence and persons accused of abetment of or attempt to commit, such offence; (c) xx xx xx xx (d) persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction." 27. It is thus not incumbent that a Special Judge has to take cognizance under the Prevention of Corruption Act, before it can proceed against them for other offences under different laws. The matter would be different, if petitioners would have been the only accused in the case. In such circumstances, the Special Judge could not have validly taken cognizance of other offences under different laws without taking cognizance under the Prevention of Corruption Act first. The important feature is that the Special Judge in order to assume and exercise jurisdiction, has to first take cognizance of offence under the P.C. Act in the case against any of the accused. 28. The Prevention of Corruption Act is a Special statute and Section 19 creates a complete bar on power of court to take cognizance under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is only after accord of sanction that a Special Judge can take cognizance of aforesaid offences under the P.C. Act. 28. The Prevention of Corruption Act is a Special statute and Section 19 creates a complete bar on power of court to take cognizance under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is only after accord of sanction that a Special Judge can take cognizance of aforesaid offences under the P.C. Act. The Special Judge rightly observed that it would proceed against the petitioners under the P.C. Act only after accord of sanction, which in fact in accordance with ratio laid down in case of Dilawar Singh (supra), 29. The reliance placed by the petitioners in the case of State through C.B.I. Vs. Raj Kumar Jain, (1998)6 SCC 551 would be also of no help. The Apex Court in aforesaid case held that Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act mandates that no court can take cognizance of of- fence mentioned therein without sanction of an appropriate authority. 30. In the instant case already sanction was granted in respect of the some accused persons and cognizance of offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act was already taken against those accused persons, and as such the Special Judge assumed jurisdiction to try offences in respect of other accused persons also. The indictment contained in Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act only bars the Special Court to try offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act against other accused till sanction is granted against them. Thus the Special Judge cannot try offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act against petitioners till sanction is obtained. However, this does not bar Special Judge to proceed against the petitioners so far as other offences are concerned. 31. The decisions of other cases namely Manoj Sharma Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., 2008(7) Supreme Today 663 and Jasbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2006(7) Supreme Today 646 relied upon by the petitioners are not relevant and are thus being not discussed. 32. The bar under Section 19 of the Act merely mandates that the Special Court cannot proceed against such accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, till sanction is obtained for its prosecution. As reiterated above, the Apex Court in case of Dilawar Singh (supra) observed that sanction qua one accused cannot be deemed to be sanction against others. 33. 32. The bar under Section 19 of the Act merely mandates that the Special Court cannot proceed against such accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, till sanction is obtained for its prosecution. As reiterated above, the Apex Court in case of Dilawar Singh (supra) observed that sanction qua one accused cannot be deemed to be sanction against others. 33. In backdrop of aforesaid discussions, I hold that once Special Court takes cognizance of offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act against even same of the accused, he assumes jurisdiction under the Act to try other offences other than specified in Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against other accused in the case also. 34. With the aforesaid observations, these applications are dismissed.