THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO. CRL. PETITION No. 7134 of 2010. ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the order dt. 16.7.2010 in Crl.M.P.No. 1706 of 2010 in C.C.No. 11 of 2005 on the file of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. While the trial of the case in C.C.No. 11 of 2005 is pending, the Special Judge for Economic Offences-cum-VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad was placed full additional charge of the post of Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad since the Special Judge for CBI Cases was retiring from service on 30.6.2010. The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No. 1706 of 2010 on 17.6.2010 before the Special Judge for Economic Offences under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking to recall PWs 8 and 9 for the purpose of further cross examination with regard to the investigation as to the issuance of CCBOT (Coin Box) Telephone Connection to Pw.1 (Complainant). The said petition was dismissed by the learned Special Judge for Economic Offences, by the order now sought to be quashed. Now it is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that merely because the Special Judge for Economic Offences is holding full additional charge of the Special Judge for CBI Cases by the proceedings of the High Court dt. 24.6.2010, he cannot assume jurisdiction to try the case or pronounce orders or Judgements of CBI Court unless he was vested the power of Special Judge as required under Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1982. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Supreme Court between State of Bihar vs. Braj Nandan Raut (2001 Crl. L.J.3678) wherein, the Supreme Court held as under: “From the facts discussed above, it is manifestly clear that the learned Vacation/Sessions Judge, Gaya was not vested with the power of Special Judge, as required under Section 3 of the Act and therefore it was not the court of Special Judge under the meaning of Section 4 of the Act and therefore it necessarily follows that the learned Vacation/Sessions Judge, Gaya had no jurisdiction to dispose of the anticipatory bail application so filed by the accused persons. The question is answered accordingly. The order impugned, in that view of the matter, must be held to be wholly without jurisdiction.” I see sufficient force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner for the reason that the learned Judge who was holding full additional charge of Special Judge, CBI Court without any power vested under Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1982 disposed of the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on merits which conclusively determined the rights of the parties on a particular issue. Therefore, the order in Crl.M.P.No. 1706 of 2010 dt. 16.7.2010 not sustainable for want of judicial competence of the Presiding Officer. Accordingly, the order in Crl.M.P.No. 1706 of 2010 dt. 16.7.2010 is quashed. The criminal petition is allowed. It is needless to mention that the petitioner can file a similar application before the regular court and the regular court shall consider the same on merits. _______________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 01.10.2010. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO. CRL. PETITION No. 7134 of 2010. ORDER: Dt. 01.10.2010.