JUDGEMENT Shiva Kirti Singh, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State. 2. The simple issue raised on behalf of the petitioners is that of jurisdiction. Mainly on that basis the order of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dalsingsarai dated 27.01.1999 whereby warrant of arrest was ordered to be issued on the prayer of investigating agency, has been challenged. 3. From the relevant facts available on records, it appears that Dalsingsarai P.S. Case No. 39/92 bearing G.R. No. 136/1992 was investigated by the police of the concerned police station and investigation was closed by submitting a final form dated 13.06.1992 to the effect that no clues could be found. It further appears from Annexure-3 that on examining the facts of the case, under orders of Dy. Inspector General of Police (Economic Offence Cell) it was decided to take the case for further investigation under Crime Investigation Department. The case was considered significant because it involved alleged theft of valuable forms such as Form 9C etc from the Commercial Taxes Department Office at Dalsingsarai. Pursuant to such decision the offences alleged under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC was allowed to be further investigated upon application filed by the Superintendent of Police (Food) C.I.D, Muzaffarpur range. 4. On behalf of petitioners the submission is that once further investigation was allowed at the instance of C.I.D, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dalsingsarai could not have exercised any jurisdiction and could not have passed the orders under challenge directing for issuance of warrant as required by investigating agency. However, in support of such submission no provision of law was brought to the notice of this Court except Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but that provision relates only to the circumstance in which the court can order for reopening of a case and does not take away the power of the learned Magistrate in case investigated by the C.I.D. In the present case, the order under challenge is not that by which re-opeining was allowed but a subsequent order whereby warrants were ordered to be issued. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners cited before this Court two judgments of unreported cases (1) Narendra Kumar v. State of Bihar (Cr. Misc. No. 31855/2003 dated 21.5.2004 and (2) an order of the same date, between the same parties in Cr. Misc. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners cited before this Court two judgments of unreported cases (1) Narendra Kumar v. State of Bihar (Cr. Misc. No. 31855/2003 dated 21.5.2004 and (2) an order of the same date, between the same parties in Cr. Misc. No. 31552/2003, to submit that because of provisions of Special Act such as Bihar Finance Act, the provisions of general law will cease to apply. 6. On a careful perusal of those judgments, it is clear that offences involved therein related to IPC as well as offences under the Bihar Finance Act which contains a provision which bars cognizance in absence of prior sanction of the Commissioner. The present case is simply under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and not under the Bihar finance Act and the stage of cognizance has yet not arrived. In the opinion of this Court those judgments are not relevant. This Court finds no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that order of Sessions Court annexed as Annexure-6 would show that petitioners prayer for anticipatory bail was not considered favourably on account of a submission that the case was triable only by a special court. In the light of that order Learned Counsel for the petitioner has prayed that some observations be made so that petitioners may not suffer unnecessarily on account of such observations of the Sessions Court. 8. The jurisdiction in the matter of anticipatory bail is vested in the Sessions Court as well as in the High Court. The opinion expressed by the Sessions Court alone is not sufficient to harm the interest of the petitioners. However, if the petitioners want to renew their prayer for anticipatory bail, they may do so before appropriate court in accordance with law or if they choose to appear before the trial court in that case, their prayer for bail may be considered expeditiously without being prejudiced by this order. 9. If any of the petitioners is dead, as submitted, then such fact may be brought to the notice of the investigating agency as well as the court below which may verify this fact and pass suitable orders in accordance with law.