the Special Judge under the said Act. Alongwith
the offence under the Prevention of Corruption
Act, the Special Judge was competent to try the
Petitioners for offences under the Indian Penal
Code by virtue of section 4(3) of the Act of
1988. In the present case, however, when the
evidence collected by the investigating agency
was placed before the Special Judge to consider
the same for framing of charge, the Special Judge
by his order dated 21st April 1998 observed that
the material was not sufficient to frame charge
under section 5(1)(c) and (d) read with section
5(2) and section 13(1)(c) and (d) read with
section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act. However, in the same order in para 4, it is
clearly stated that the materials on record would
cover the offences punishable under sections
120B, 420, 468, 471, 109 read with section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code. That, indeed, is a prima
facie opinion recorded by the Special Judge as
was required for framing of charges for these
offences. Be that as it may, the operative order
passed by the Special Judge dated 21st April
1998, obviously takes the colour from the power
bestowed on the Special Judge in terms of section
