ORDER : 1. The petitioner is the investigation officer in RC15/(A)/2017CBI/ACS/Cochin, for offences punishable under section 120B read with section 420 Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After completion of investigation, final report was laid before the Special Judge, CBI, Thiruvananthapuram and is now pending trial as CC.No.5/2019 before the Special Judge, CBI, Thiruvananthapuram against the accused. On the basis of a complaint submitted by the Company Secretary of the Company involved in the above case, the second respondent, who is the Sub Inspector of Police, Poojappura Police Station registered Crime No.249/2008 for offences punishable under sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the third accused in RC15/(A)/2017CBI/ ACB/Cochin. After investigation, final report was laid and the matter is pending trial as CC.No.2242/2015 on the file of the ACJM, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. According to the petitioner, the facts stated in CC.No.2242/2015 pending before the ACJM, Thiruvananthapuram and CC.No.5/2019 pending before the Special Judge, CBI, Thiruvananthapuram are identical and are similar. Both cases arise from same set of facts and out of the same incident. There are allegations. of criminal conspiracy and criminal misconduct by the public servant, in the course of commission of the same transaction. Hence, both the matters need to be tried and disposed of by the same Special Judge, CBI, Thiruvananthapuram. Hence, the transfer was sought. 3. The Registry raised an objection that in the light of the proviso to sub section 2 of Section 407 Cr.P.C, Tr.P.(CrI) is not maintainable, unless a transfer petition is made to the Sessions Court and rejected. Though this was answered and after numbering, the matter was placed before this court for consideration. It was felt that the maintainability of the Tr.P.(Crl), in the light of the proviso to sub section 2 of Section 407 Cr.P.C, has to be considered in detail. 4. Heard the learned Special Prosecutor for the petitioner. 5. According to the learned Special Prosecutor for the petitioner, proviso to sub section 2 of Section 407 Cr.P.C, has no application to the facts of the case, on the premise that the ACJM Court, Thiruvananthapuram, though a criminal court in the same sessions division, the Special Court, Thiruvananthapuram, wherein CC.No.5/2019 is pending cannot be considered as a criminal court in the same sessions division of Thiruvananthapuram. Consequently, an application for transfer from the ACJM Court, Thiruvananthapuram to the Special Court, Thiruvananthapuram is not sustainable before the Sessions Court and necessarily, the matter falls within sub section 2 of Section 407 Cr.P.C. The proviso has no application to the facts of the case, it was contended. 6. Proviso to Sub Section 2 of Section 407 of Cr.P.C, provides that an application shall not lie to the High Court for transferring a case from one criminal court to another criminal court in the same sessions division, unless an application for such transfer has been made to the Sessions Judge and rejected. The contention of the learned Special Prosecutor for the petitioner was that, the Special Judge, CSI, Thiruvananthapuram constituted under the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be considered as a criminal court "in the same sessions division" as that of the ACJM Court, Thiruvananthapuram and hence the bar under section 407(2) proviso of Cr.P.C will not be attracted. 7. The crux of the issue is whether a Special Court constituted under Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, vested with powers to try offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, can be considered as a criminal court falling within the sessions division, wherein it is situated. Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, empowers the Central Government or the State Government to appoint Special Judges under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It provides that 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 offences prescribed in Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It provides that 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 under the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the learned Special Prosecutor for the petitioner, a Special Court which the present case is pending is one among the six special courts constituted in Kerala and they have separate territorial and other jurisdictions. It was stated that each special court has jurisdiction to try matters that fall within more than one district. According to the learned Special Prosecutor for the petitioner, a Special Court which the present case is pending is one among the six special courts constituted in Kerala and they have separate territorial and other jurisdictions. It was stated that each special court has jurisdiction to try matters that fall within more than one district. Evidently the jurisdiction of each special court extends beyond the territorial jurisdiction of each sessions division. 8. Section 6 of the Cr.P.C 1973, deals with the various classes of criminal courts under the Cr.P.C. One of the court denoted therein is a Court of Session. Section 7 (1) of the Cr.P.C prescribes that, every State shall be a sessions division or shall consist of sessions division and every sessions division shall, for the purposes of this Code, be a district or consist of districts. Section 9 of the Cr.P.C., empowers the State Government to establish a Court of Session for every sessions division. Every Court of-Session shall be presided over by a Judge, to be appointed by the High Court. Section 9 (3) of the Cr.P.C provides that the High Court may also appoint Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges to exercise jurisdiction in a Court of Session. Section 10 of the Cr.P.C., deals with subordination of Assistant Sessions Judges and Section 11 of the Cr.P.C deals with the Courts of Judicial fv1agistrates. According to he learned Special Prosecutor for the petitioner, the Criminal Procedure Code does not specifically provide that the Sessions Court shall be subordinate to the High Court. 9. The crucial question that arises is whether the Sessions Court constituted under Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act can be considered as a criminal court falling within a sessions division. As mentioned above, the Special Court, Thiruvananthapuram is one among the Special Courts constituted for trying matters under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Evidently, their territorial jurisdiction may not correspond with, and may not be limited to, one sessions division. The jurisdiction of a criminal court limited within the sessions division wherein it is situated, and the administrative and judicial subordination to that Sessions Court can broadly be stated to be the important indicators to decide whether one criminal court falls within a sessions division as contemplated under the proviso to Sub Section 2 of Section 407 of the Cr.P.C. 10. Going by the power conferred on the Central Government or the State Government under Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, a Sessions Judge or an Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge can be appointed as a Special Judge by notification. The Special Court constituted under the special enactment are conferred with special jurisdiction. It is true that the qualification to be a Special Judge is that he is or has been a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge. However, their mode of appointment is different. It is also to be noted a Special Judge under Section 3 of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, is appointed by notification and not by conferring jurisdiction on an existing Session Court. To that extent, the Special Court stands distinct from other criminal court within that sessions division. 11. The above interpretation gets it support from the law laid down by the Supreme Court in A.R.Antulay Vs. R.S.Nayak AIR 1984 SC 718 . While analysing the distinct jurisdiction of the Special Court, through in a different context, was that the Court of Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act was a Court of original criminal jurisdiction. As a Court of original criminal jurisdiction, in order to make it functionally oriented, some powers are conferred by the statue. Except those specifically conferred and specifically denied, it has to function as a Court of original criminal jurisdiction not being bound by the terminological status description of a Magistrate or a Court of Sessions. Under the term Court, it will enjoy all powers which a Court of original criminal jurisdiction enjoys, save and except the ones specifically denied. It was further held that the Court of a Special Judge, once created. by an independent statue, has been brought as a Court of original criminal jurisdiction under the High Court, because Section 9 confers on the High Court all the powers conferred by Chapters XXXI and XXXIII of the Cr.P.C., 1898 on a High Court, as if the Court of Special Judge were a Court of Session trying cases without a jury and within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the High Court. Therefore; a new criminal court with a name, designation and qualification of the officer eligible to preside over it with powers specified and the particular procedure which it must follow has been set up under the 1952 Act. 12. The above clearly indicates that though a Special Court constituted under Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, forms part of the Justice delivery system constituted under the sovereign function of the State, it falls outside the scope of the term "criminal court in the same sessions division" as contemplated under the proviso to sub section 2 of Section 407 Cr.P.C. Consequently, an application for transfer of a matter pending before one sessions division to a Special Court constituted under Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, or vice versa, will not lie to the Sessions Court of that sessions division, but only to the High Court. The objection raised by the Registry is accordingly answered and the Tr.P.(Crl) is taken on record.