JUDGMENT : A.M. Khanwilkar, J. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal dated 31.7.1997, passed by Sh. Surjit Singh, Sessions Judge, Shimla (as he then was) in Corruption Case No. 43-S/7 of 95/88 - though in the title of the judgment the description given is as Special Judge, Shimla. 3. The core question that needs to be decided in this appeal, at the threshold, is, whether the judgment rendered by Sh. Surjit Singh, as Sessions Judge, Shimla on 31.7.1997, suffers from the vice of Coram non judice? If this issue is answered in favour of the appellant, it will not be necessary for us to examine any other aspect on merits. For considering this question, the admitted facts are as follows: The respondents were tried for offences punishable under Sections 379, 467, 468, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 41/42 of the Indian Forests Act, Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 17 of the Himachal Pradesh River Rules, 1971. The Sessions Judge, assumed that he had the jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment on 31.7.1997, notwithstanding the notification dated 25.7.1997. It is not in dispute that the District and Sessions Judge, Shimla was appointed as a Special Judge for the trial of 16 cases, which included the Criminal Case No. 14-S/7 of 93/98 Forest (State v. Balak Ram, later on numbered as 43-S/7 of 95/88). It was not an appointment of a particular Judge as a Special Judge by name, but of the Judge in office as District and Sessions Judge, Shimla. The notification dated 22.7.1995, reads thus: "Government of Himachal Pradesh Home Department. No. Home-II(B) 15-6/79 dated Shimla-171002, 22/7/1995. In exercise of the powers vested in him under Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act No. 49 of 1988), the Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to appoint Distt. & Sessions Judge Shimla as Special Judge for the trial of offences committed in following cases:- 1. 2-S/7 of 91 Forest State Vs. Amrit Singh 2. 14-S/7 of 93/88 Forest State Vs. Balak Ram 3. 1-S/7 of 91 Forest State Vs. Bhupinder Singh 4. 40-S/7 of 94 Forest State Vs. S.R. Mason 5. 52-S/7 of 93 Forest State Vs. Attar Singh 6. 21-S/7/93 Forest State Vs. Joginder Singh 7. 36-S/7 of 94 Forest State Vs. 2-S/7 of 91 Forest State Vs. Amrit Singh 2. 14-S/7 of 93/88 Forest State Vs. Balak Ram 3. 1-S/7 of 91 Forest State Vs. Bhupinder Singh 4. 40-S/7 of 94 Forest State Vs. S.R. Mason 5. 52-S/7 of 93 Forest State Vs. Attar Singh 6. 21-S/7/93 Forest State Vs. Joginder Singh 7. 36-S/7 of 94 Forest State Vs. Kushal Chand 8. 1-S/7 of 94 Forest State Vs. Krishan Lal 9. 6-S/7 of 94 Forest State Vs. Partap Singh 10. 23-S/7 of 93 Forest State Vs. Kanwar Singh 11. 43-S/7 of 94 Forest State Vs. Amrit Singh 12. 42-S/7 of 94 Forest State Vs. Kameshwar Singh 13. FIR No. 50/84 Forest State Vs. Devinder Singh 14. 55-S/7 of 92 Forest State Vs. Nathu Singh 15. 3-s/7 of 91 Forest State Vs. Sham Lal Walia 16. 5-s/7 of 95 Forest State Vs. Bhupinder Singh By Order Commr.-cum-Secretary (Home) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh." (emphasis supplied) This notification was published in the Official Gazette on 22.7.1995. On the basis of the said notification, the trial of Criminal Case No. 14- S/7 of 93/88 Forest, commenced before the District and Sessions Judge, Shimla. It is also seen that the trial of the present criminal case proceeded before Sh. Surjit Singh, the then District and Sessions Judge. The same was completed and arguments of the parties were heard on 5.7.1997. The case was adjourned for pronouncement of judgment. However, before the judgment was actually pronounced, in the interregnum, another notification was issued by the State Government in exercise of power under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, in the name of Governor to rescind the earlier notification dated 22.7.1995 and to appoint Special Judge (Forests) {by designation and not by name}, for trial of the notified 16 criminal cases, which included the Criminal Case No. 14- S/7 of 93/88 Forest, State v. Balak Ram. The said notification dated 25.7.1997, reads thus: "Government of Himachal Pradesh Home Department. No. Home-II(B) 15-6/79 Dated Shimla-171002, 25-7-1997. In exercise of the powers vested in him under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to order to rescind the notification issued vide this Department No. Home-II (B) 15-6/79 dated 22.7.95 and to appoint Special Judge (Forest) for the trial of the offences committed in following cases:- 1. 2-S/7 of 91 Forest State Vs. Amrit Singh 2. 2-S/7 of 91 Forest State Vs. Amrit Singh 2. 14-S/70 of 93/88 Forest State Vs. Balak Ram 3. 1-S/70 of 91 Forest State Vs. Bhupinder Singh 4. 40-S/7 of 94 Forest State Vs. S.R. Mason 5. 52-S/7 of 93 Forest State Vs. Attar Singh 6. 21-S/7/93 Forest State Vs. Joginder Singh 7. 36-S/7 of 94 Forest State Vs. Kushal Chand 8. 1-S/7 of 94 Forest State Vs. Krishan Lal 9. 6-S/7 of 94 Forest State Vs. Partap Singh 10. 23-S/7 of 93 Forest State Vs. Kanwar Singh 11. 43-S/7 of 94 Forest State Vs. Amrit Singh 12. 42-S/7 of 94 Forest State Vs. Kameshwar Singh 13. FIR No. 50/84 Forest State Vs. Devinder Singh 14. 55-S/7 of 92 Forest State Vs. Nathu Ram 15. 3-S/7 of 91 Forest State Vs. Sham Lal Walia 16. 5-S/7 of 95 Forest State Vs. Bhupinder Singh By Order Commr.-cum-Secretary (Home) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh." (emphasis supplied) Thereafter, the case on hand was listed for pronouncement of judgment before the District and Sessions Judge, Shimla on 31.7.1997. In view of the aforesaid notification dated 25.7.1997, an application was moved by the prosecution before the District and Sessions Judge, Shimla that he had ceased to be a Special Judge, for which reason, the judgment should not be pronounced by that Court. Instead, the further trial of the case will have to proceed before the Special Judge (Forests). This application, however, came to be rejected by a speaking order passed on 31.7.1997, which reads thus: "31.7.97. Present:- Shri Jawahar Sharma, P.P. for the State. All accused in person. An application has been moved by the learned P.P. that this Court should not pronounce the judgment as the State of H.P. has rescinded the Notification dated 22.7.95, whereby the Sessions Judge, Shimla was appointed as Special Judge for the trial of this case. It is true that aforesaid Notification has been rescinded vide notification dated 25.7.1997 of the Government of H.P., but there are instructions from the Honble High Court that only 15 out of the 16 cases mentioned in the said Notification are to be transferred to the Special Judge (Forests) and the present case in which the arguments have been heard, judgment is to be pronounced. Per separate judgment, placed on the file, all the accused are acquitted. Record be competed and consigned to the record room. Announced. 31.7.1997. Per separate judgment, placed on the file, all the accused are acquitted. Record be competed and consigned to the record room. Announced. 31.7.1997. sd/- Special Judge, Shimla." After rejecting the said application, the District and Sessions Judge, Shimla, immediately, on the same day, pronounced the impugned judgment of acquittal. That decision is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal. 4. In the backdrop of these admitted facts, the question is whether the District and Sessions Judge, was competent to pronounce the judgment on 31.7.1997 on the specious ground that the High Court has permitted him to do so. We will assume that such permission was infact granted by the High Court, to the District and Sessions Judge, Shimla. That, in our opinion, cannot be the basis to invest jurisdiction in the District and Sessions Judge, Shimla to try cases involving offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, considering the mandate of Section 4 of the Act. Section 4 (1) in particular of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which reads thus: "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." (emphasis supplied) 5. On a bare perusal of this provision, there can be no manner of doubt that it creates a bar of jurisdiction, of the ordinary Criminal Court, to try any case concerning the offence specified in sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. The provision opens with a non-obstante clause. The trial of those cases can be and must be conducted "only" by Special Judges, so notified. The Special Judge is appointed by the Government in exercise of power under Section 3 of the Act. Section 3 (1) of the Act, reads thus: "3. The provision opens with a non-obstante clause. The trial of those cases can be and must be conducted "only" by Special Judges, so notified. The Special Judge is appointed by the Government in exercise of power under Section 3 of the Act. Section 3 (1) of the Act, reads thus: "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 in 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)." 6. From the admitted facts, it is noticed that the appointment of District and Sessions Judge, Shimla, as Special Judge, in terms of notification dated 22.7.1995 enured till issuance of notification dated 25.7.1997. On issuance of notification dated 25.7.1997 and upon its publication in the Official Gazette on the same day, the previous notification stood rescinded. Resultantly, it took away the jurisdiction of the District and Sessions Judge, Shimla to try the offences punishable under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Instead, the said notification dated 25.7.1997 invested that jurisdiction in favour of the Special Judge (Forests), on and from that date. Thus, on and from the publication of the notification in the Official Gazette on 25.7.1997, the District and Sessions Judge, Shimla, could not have tried the stated offences punishable under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, any further. 7. Indubitably, the act of pronouncement of judgment is an integral part of a trial, as can be seen from the scheme of Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The trial concludes only upon pronouncement of judgment. In other words, the trial commences with taking cognizance of the offence by the concerned Court and continues till the pronouncement of judgment. A priori, it was not open to the District and Sessions Judge, Shimla to proceed in the matter further even if he had taken approval from the High Court in that behalf. The approval of the High Court will not invest jurisdiction in the District and Sessions Judge of a Special Judge. A priori, it was not open to the District and Sessions Judge, Shimla to proceed in the matter further even if he had taken approval from the High Court in that behalf. The approval of the High Court will not invest jurisdiction in the District and Sessions Judge of a Special Judge. The appointment of Special Judge could be made only by issuance of notification under Section 3 (1) in the official gazette and not otherwise. 8. Taking any other view of the matter, would be whittling down the efficacy of Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, if not re-writing the same. In our opinion, therefore, the judgment pronounced by the District and Sessions Judge, Shimla, which is the subject matter of appeal was without authority of law and will have to be set aside, being nullity and nonest in law. 9. It may be useful to advert to Section 461 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973. It predicates that if any Magistrate, not being empowered by law in this behalf, does any of the acts, referred to therein and in particular tries an offender, it would be a case of irregularity vitiating the proceedings. In the present case, the proceedings will not be vitiated in its entirety but only from the stage of hearing arguments and pronouncement of judgment. As a matter of fact, in the present case, the arguments were concluded much before the notification was issued and published in the official gazette on 25.7.1997. However, as no judgment can be pronounced by a Judge without hearing the arguments of the parties, we are inclined to hold that in the peculiar facts of the present case, the proceedings from the stage of hearing arguments have vitiated so that the criminal case must now proceed before the Special Judge (Forests), from the stage of oral arguments. 10. Counsel for the appellant, had relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Parkash Singh Badal and another v. State of Punjab and others, (2007) 1 SCC 1 , in particular paragraphs 78 to 82. 10. Counsel for the appellant, had relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Parkash Singh Badal and another v. State of Punjab and others, (2007) 1 SCC 1 , in particular paragraphs 78 to 82. He has also placed reliance on the another decision of the Apex Court in the case of P. Nallammal and another v. State represented by Inspector of Police, (1999) 6 SCC 559 , in particular paragraphs 8 & 9 to buttress the argument that Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, leaves no manner of doubt that it is only the Special Judge, who is competent to try the case involving offences of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 11. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, this appeal ought to succeed on the above basis. In other words, the impugned judgment of the District and Sessions Judge, is quashed and set aside and instead Criminal Case No. 43-S/7 of 95/88 is restored to the file of the Special Judge (Forests) who in turn shall continue the trial of that case from the stage of oral arguments and then pronounce the judgment. The parties shall appear before the Special Judge (Forests) on 19.8.2013, at 11:00 AM, on which date, the Special Judge, may issue appropriate directions, as may be advised, while ensuring that the judgment of the case is pronounced not later than 30.11.2013, considering the fact that the trial pertains to year 1988 and some of the accused have already died whereby the proceedings qua them must have abated. 12. We make it clear that the Special Judge (Forests), shall decide the case afresh from the stage of oral arguments on its own merits, in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made in the impugned decision. 13. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. The original record be returned to the Court of Special Judge (Forests), Shimla forthwith.