JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the parties through video conferencing. 2. This Cr.M.P. has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with two fold prayers:- (1) to quash the order taking cognizance dated 29.03.2012 passed by C.J.M., Simdega in connection with Simdega P.S. Case No.88/10; and (2) for quashing the order dated 30.06.2015 passed by learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi in connection with Simdega P.S. Case No.88/10 corresponding to Vigilance Case No.23/15 (G.R. Case No.251/10) whereby and where under the learned Special Judge has inter alia cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner and nine other co-accused persons except the accused Santanu Panda who is said to have died and directed to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner and nine other co-accused persons and notice to their bailers under Section 446 Cr.P.C. 3. The brief facts of this case is that the petitioner along with co-accused persons being the owners and drivers of the trucks were giving bribe of Rs.3,50,000/- to the public servant-informant-Police Officer and the said amount of Rs.3,50,000/- has been seized and after due investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and the co-accused persons. 4. The brief facts of this case is that the petitioner along with co-accused persons being the owners and drivers of the trucks were giving bribe of Rs.3,50,000/- to the public servant-informant-Police Officer and the said amount of Rs.3,50,000/- has been seized and after due investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and the co-accused persons. 4. It is pertinent to mention here that the learned C.J.M., Simdega, inter alia took cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 414, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 4 and 12 of M.M.D.R. Act and Section 4, 9 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and three co-accused persons namely Om Prakash Rathor @ Om Prakash Kumar Rathor, Ashok Kumar Mandal @ Tinku and Radha Krishna Pati @ Radha Krishna earlier approached this court and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court which vide order dated 27.11.2015 passed in Cr.M.P. No.1020 of 2013, set aside the part of the said order dated 29.03.2012 under which cognizance for the offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act has been taken against the said co-accused persons who were the petitioners of the said Cr.M.P. Under the direction of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Simdega, the learned S.D.J.M., Simdega vide order dated 29.04.2015 observed that cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 4, 9 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is exclusively triable by the Special Court, Ranchi and cognizance for those offences were taken in the case earlier and directed the office clerk to send the records to the Special Court at Ranchi and subsequently the records were received by the Special Judge, Vigilance on 05.05.2015. The case was later on posted to 30.06.2015 and the learned Special Judge, Vigilance observed in the said order that as for the last two dates none of the accused persons were appearing in the case, hence, he cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner and other co-accused persons and issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against them. 5. Mr. The case was later on posted to 30.06.2015 and the learned Special Judge, Vigilance observed in the said order that as for the last two dates none of the accused persons were appearing in the case, hence, he cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner and other co-accused persons and issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against them. 5. Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda-the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Chief Judicial Magistrate is not authorized in law to take cognizance of the offences punishable under the penal provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 as the Special Judge appointed under the provisions of the said act is only authorized to take cognizance of the offences punishable under the penal provision of the said act. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega has not given any direction to the petitioner to appear before the Special Judge, Ranchi. It is then submitted that there are several courts of Special Judges in Ranchi but the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Simdega has not specified in his order as to which Special Judge, Ranchi the case is transferred to and under such circumstances, it was incumbent upon the learned Special Judge, Vigilance at Ranchi to issue a notice intimating him to appear before it before cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega but having not done the same the said order dated 30.06.2015 is illegal and is liable to be set aside. 6. Ms. Niki Sinha- learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand opposed the prayer of the petitioner and defended the order dated 30.06.2015 and submitted that as on 29.04.2015 before the order of sending the records to the Special Court at Ranchi which was passed by a later on order on 29.04.2015, the case was fixed for 26.05.2015 by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Simdega. Hence, the petitioner ought to have appeared before the Special Judge, Vigilance on 26.05.2015. Hence, it is submitted that the said order need not be set aside. 7. Hence, the petitioner ought to have appeared before the Special Judge, Vigilance on 26.05.2015. Hence, it is submitted that the said order need not be set aside. 7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials in the record, it is needless to mention here that the learned C.J.M., Simdega who has taken the cognizance for the penal provisions of law and also for Section 4 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which is not a penal provision of law under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. As has been held by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.11.2015 passed in Cr.M.P. No.1020 of 2013, the C.J.M., Simdega is not empowered to take cognizance of the offences punishable under the penal provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and only the Special Judge appointed under the said act is empowered to take cognizance of the offences punishable under the penal provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accordingly, the part of the order dated 29.03.2012 passed by the C.J.M., Simdega so far as it relates to taking cognizance for offences under the penal provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is set aside. The learned Special Judge, Ranchi is directed to pass a fresh order regarding the cognizance in the matter. 8. So far as order dated 30.06.2015 is concerned, perusal of the order-sheet reveals that the learned S.D.J.M., Simdega has not mentioned in the said order as to which Special Court at Ranchi, case record is being sent nor it gave any direction to the petitioner or any of the co-accused persons to appear before the Court of Special Judge, Ranchi. From the impugned order of the learned S.D.J.M., Simdega it is not clear that the date fixed by him to 26.05.2015 was the date for the Special Judge at Ranchi. Since there was a change in the place of sitting of the transferor court being S.D.J.M., Simdega and the transferee court being Special Judge, Vigilance at Ranchi, in the absence of any specific direction to the accused petitioner to appear before the Court of Special Judge at Ranchi, the learned Special Judge, Vigilance at Ranchi ought to have issued fresh notice to the petitioner and the co-accused persons intimating them to appear before it. Having not done so, straightway cancelling the bail of the petitioner and co-accused persons and issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest against them is certainly not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the same is set aside. 9. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Special Judge, Vigilance at Ranchi on 28.09.2021 and the Special Judge, Vigilance at Ranchi is directed to issue notice through registered A/D post as well as through the concerned police station and also by the process of the court to the co-accused persons, if any, who have not appeared as yet, and in case any of the co-accused person do not appear before it even after service of notice then the Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi may cancel their bail and issue non-bailable warrant of arrest. It is made clear that in view of this order if the petitioner appears before the Special Judge, Vigilance at Ranchi on 28.09.2021, it will be treated that he is continuing in bail granted by the court at Simdega but in case it fails to appear on that day, the bail granted to him shall be cancelled by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance at Ranchi. 10. This Cr.M.P. is disposed of accordingly.