JUDGMENT : RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Asst. Solicitor General of India for the respondent. 2. By this petition u/s. 482 read with Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC petitioners challenged legality and validity of the order of the learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Addl. CBI Court II, Guwahati dated 8.1.2015 in special case 8/2007 whereby charges are framed against the petitioners under Sections 120(B), 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Sri Dilip Paul Choudhury(now dead) and Sri Binayak Paul Choudhury are the directors of the company which was awarded contract of construction of staff quarters (including earth filling) of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) at Guwahati at an estimated cost of Rs. 2,38,68,095.33. The entire project was supervised by the architect M/s. Designers' Guild, Guwahati. Payments of a total of 46 running bills which were certified by the architect were made to the petitioners by the RBI. 4. After completion of the entire work, based on source information that one Sri SB Bhowmik while working as Asst. Engineer in RBI at Guwahati entered into a criminal conspiracy with the petitioner company and others and in pursuance of such conspiracy caused an excess payment of Rs. 19 lakh to the petitioner company for earth filling in the site (Zoo Narangi Road) where the staff quarters. of RBI were constructed and caused wrongful pecuniary loss to the RBI, CBI on 30.11.1992 registered RC.32(A)/92-SHG u/s. 120(B)/420/468/471/477 (A) of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and completing the investigation submitted chargesheet against the petitioners and other accused Santosh Kumar Srivastava, then Asst Engineer of RBI at Guwahati; Dilip Kr Bora, Indrajeet Baruah, Dilip Paul Choudhury and Binayak Paul Choudhury, but did not send the said Sri SB Bhowmik for trial as no evidence was found against him. 5. The learned trial court after hearing both sides and considering the statements of witnesses and the documents discharged petitioners holding that prima facie prosecution has failed to make out any case against them by the order dated 22.9.1997. 6. Prosecution challenged the said order in crl. revision petition 39/1998 and this court set aside the order and remanded the case to the trial court for fresh decision by the order dated 13.2006. 7. 6. Prosecution challenged the said order in crl. revision petition 39/1998 and this court set aside the order and remanded the case to the trial court for fresh decision by the order dated 13.2006. 7. The learned trial court framed charges against the accused persons u/s. 120(B)/420/34 of the IPC by the order dated 8.1.2015. Hence this petition. 8. Petitioners submit that they are not public servants and since no charge was framed against any public servants the trial court lacks jurisdiction to frame charge against the private persons and try the case against them and said that no prima facie case to frame charge against them is made out in view of the admitted fact that RBI has already settled the matter of excess payment by deducting their payments involved in terms of the order in money suit 149/1992 filed by the RBI against them. 9. Learned senior counsel Mr. Das, however, basically questioned the jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge to try the offences under the Indian Penal Code, there being no public servant tried at the time of framing the charge. As the other grounds of challenge are not pressed before this court we will decide the crucial aspect of lack of jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge, CBI to try the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, PC Act 1988). 10. Learned senior counsel Mr. Das submitted at length on the matter of jurisdiction of the Special Judge to try the offences under the 1988 Act, drawing attention of this court to the decision of the Apex Court in State through Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi Vs. Jitendra Kumar Singh (2014) 11 SCC 724 , wherein law laid down that the Special Judge has no authority to try case of the accused who were not public servants and where the accused were not charged along with the offences under the PC Act. 11. Adverting to the facts of the case it is submitted that the present petitioners are admittedly not public servants being contractors and the learned trial court framed charges under Sections 120(B), 420 and 34 of the IPC. 12. Learned ASGI Mr. SC Keyal submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 13. From the impugned order it appears that as one of the public servants Mr. 12. Learned ASGI Mr. SC Keyal submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 13. From the impugned order it appears that as one of the public servants Mr. SK Srivastava was absent and stated to be critically ill, the court split up the case and framed charges against accused Dilip Kr Bora(who died later); Binayak Paul Choudhury, the petitioner no. 2; and Indrajeet Baruah, the partner of the architect Designers' Guild. This petition is filed by the contractor BM Paul Choudhury & Company (P) Ltd., and Indrajeet Baruah is not before this court. 14. Obviously the petitioners are contractors and hence private individuals and charges were framed by splitting up the case against the public servant. 15. Relying on the decision in Jitendra Singh(supra) it is strenuously submitted that the Special Judge has no jurisdiction to try the offences under the Indian Penal Code in terms of the provisions of Section 4(3) and 3(1) of the PC Act 1988. 16. Having regard to the prime issue raised before this court, let us appreciate the provisions relevant to decide the matter. 17. A Special Judge, appointed under Section 3 of the 1988 Act, can try the offences as provided in the Act. Section 3(a) provides that the Officer can try any offence punishable under the Act and any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to commit or any abetment of any of the offences specified in clause (a). Section 4 provides that the offences mentioned in Section 3(a)(b) can be tried only by the special Judge for the area in which the offence is committed, and in addition to try the offences under the Act the special Judge may also try any offence other than the offences specified in Section 3 with which the accused may, under the CPC, be charged at the same trial. 18. The said provision has defined the jurisdiction of the special Judge to try cases and any other Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the offence specified in Section 3(1) of the Act. Thus, a special Judge, appointed u/s. 3(1) of the 1988 Act, has the jurisdiction to proceed against public servants, even non public servants as well, depending upon the nature of the offences referred to above. 19. Thus, a special Judge, appointed u/s. 3(1) of the 1988 Act, has the jurisdiction to proceed against public servants, even non public servants as well, depending upon the nature of the offences referred to above. 19. Notable it is, the offences u/s. 8, 9 and 12 of the Act can be committed by a non public servant and he can be proceeded under the PC Act without joinder of any public servant, but the same aspect is not required for the purpose of deciding the present issue before this court as it is related to offence of accepting gratification offered by private persons to influence public servant. Similarly a private person offering bribes to public servant can also be tried under the PC Act by the Special Judge under Section 12, but insofar as trial of offences under the IPC is concerned the provision of the Act itself is clear under which situation the special Judge can try the offences against the private person. The provision in Section 4 of the Act indicates that even a private person involved in the offences specified in Section 3(1) of the Act is required to be tried by a special Judge. 20. All these aspects are discussed by the Apex Court in Jitendra Singh(supra) and so for better appreciation it would be apposite to reproduce the observations made by the Apex Court. Supreme Court held that Section 4(3) of the PC Act indicates that "when trying any case", that means trying any case relating to the offences specified in Section 3(1)(a)(b) of the PC Act for which exclusive jurisdiction is conferred on the special Judge. Supreme Court held that Section 4(3) of the PC Act indicates that "when trying any case", that means trying any case relating to the offences specified in Section 3(1)(a)(b) of the PC Act for which exclusive jurisdiction is conferred on the special Judge. A special Judge in exercising the exclusive jurisdiction may also try any offence other than the offences specified in Section 3 with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, be charged at the same trial for an offence committed under the IPC and the offences specified in Section 3 of the PC Act In other words, an accused either a public servant or a non-public servant who is charged for an offence u/s. 3(1) of the PC Act can also be charged for an offence under the IPC and the special Judge has got the power to try such offences against public servant as well as non public servant, therefore trying a case by the special Judge u/s. 3(1) is a sine quo non for exercising jurisdiction by the special Judge for trying any offence other than the offences specified in Section 3. Trying any case u/s. 3(1) is, therefore, a jurisdictional fact for the special Judge to exercise powers to try any offence other than an offence specified in Section 3. 21. A special Judge exercising power under the PC Act is not expected to try non PC Act offences totally unconnected with any offences u/s. 3(1) and in that case a special Judge not trying any offences u/s. 3(1) of the PC Act the question of the special Judge trying non PC offences does not arise. As indicated above, trying PC offences is a jurisdictional fact to exercise the power u/s. 4(3). Exercise of jurisdiction depends upon the jurisdictional fact of trying a PC offence. 22. In Jitendra Singh(supra) Apex Court while examining an appeal where the matter pertains to filing of chargesheet against public servant as well as non public servant for the offences u/s. 120(B)/420 of the IPC read with Sections 13(2)/13(1)(d) of the PC Act, where the public servant died prior to framing charge and on the prayer of the non public servant that in absence of public servant the offences under the IPC should be tried by a court of Magistrate, the trial court sent the case for trial by Magistrate. The CBI challenged the said order and the Bombay High Court took the view that special Judge was not divested of the jurisdiction conferred upon him on the death of public servant and directed to continue the trial by the special judge and while the said matter was taken to the Apex Court, the Apex Court after examining the matter, in para 46 and 47 of the judgment held as below: "46. We may now examine Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2011, where the FIR was registered on 2.7.1996 and the charge-sheet was filed before the Special Judge on 14.9.2001 for the offences under Sections 120B, 420, IPC read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1) of the PC Act Accused 9 and 10 died even before the charge-sheet was sent to the Special Judge. The charge against the sole public servant under the PC Act could also not be framed since he died on 18.2.2005. The Special Judge also could not frame any charge against non-public servants. As already indicated, under sub-section (3) of Section 4, the special Judge could try non-PC offences only when "trying any case" relating to PC offences. In the instant case, no PC offence has been committed by any of the non-public servants so as to fall under Section 3(1) of the PC Act. Consequently, there was no occasion for the special Judge to try any case relating to offences under the PC Act against the Appellant. The trying of any case under the PC Act against a public servant or a non-public servant, as already indicated, is a sine-qua-non for exercising powers under sub-section (3) of Section 4 of PC Act. In the instant case, since no PC offence has been committed by any of the non- public servants and no charges have been framed against the public servant, while he was alive, the Special Judge had no occasion to try any case against any of them under the PC Act, since no charge has been framed prior to the death of the public servant. The jurisdictional fact, as already discussed above, does not exist so far as this appeal is concerned, so as to exercise jurisdiction by the Special Judge to deal with non-PC offences. 47. The jurisdictional fact, as already discussed above, does not exist so far as this appeal is concerned, so as to exercise jurisdiction by the Special Judge to deal with non-PC offences. 47. Consequently, we find no error in the view taken by the Special Judge, CBI, Greater Mumbai in forwarding the case papers of Special Case No. 88 of 2001 in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for trying the case in accordance with law. Consequently, the order passed by the High Court is set aside. The competent Court to which the Special Case No. 88 of 2001 is forwarded, is directed to dispose of the same within a period of six months. Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2011 is allowed accordingly." 23. Trying any case under the PC Act against the public servant or non public servant is a sine qua none for exercising the power u/s. 4(3) of the PC Act. In this case, since no PC offences are committed by any of the non public servants and no charges could be flamed against the public servant while he was alive, the special Judge has no occasion to try any case against any of them under the PC Act as the jurisdictional fact does not exist so as to deal with non PC offences as held by the honourable Apex Court in the case discussed above. Honourable Apex Court found no error in the decision taken by the special Judge in sending the case for favour of trial to the CMM. 24. In the case at hand it is found that the trial court split up the case at the time of framing charge and in that sense the trial court did not frame charge against the public servant, but proceeded to try the case after framing charge against the non public servants, the petitioners. In these circumstances, as soon as the court framed charge for the offences under the IPC, the court would have forwarded the case to the court of Magistrate having competent jurisdiction to try the case instead of proceeding for trial on its own as the law is laid down in Jitendra Singh (supra). The provision is set at rest that the special Judge cannot exercise jurisdiction to deal with the non PC offences. 25. The provision is set at rest that the special Judge cannot exercise jurisdiction to deal with the non PC offences. 25. Having heard learned counsel for both parties and considering the matters on record and the law laid down by the Apex Court as discussed above, the learned Special Judge is directed to forward the case to the court of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Assam for favour of trial. Accordingly the petition is disposed of. The interim order dated 2.3.2015 stands vacated. The petitioners are directed to appear before the learned Special Judge, Assam to receive further order.