/ o 31 % 12.10..20/0/9 Present : Mr. s. Bala Krishnan, sr. Adv. with Mr. s. K. Gurati, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas pahwa, Standing Counsel for CBi. , No. 6 1' on the last date of hearing, it was pointed out by the learned standing counsel for cBI that in the instant case the petitioner by way of the present criminal revision petition has challenged the order dated 16e september,200g directing the framing of charge against the petitioner for an offence und'er Prevention of corruption Act read with section 418 and 12oB IPc' It has been stated that this court in Dharambir Khattar Vs' central Bureau of Investigation 2ooglv AD Delhi 657 has held that an order directing the framing of charges in a case under Prevention of corruption Act is an interrocutory order and thus not amenable to a criminar revision petition in view of section 19(3)(c) of the prevention of corruption Act, 19gg. It is further contended that a special leave petition filed against the judgment of the Dharambir Khattar's case (supra) before the Apex court was arso dismissed in limini and therefore, the said order has become final. The present petition deserves to be dismissed on that score. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the judgmen t.sf-Dharambir Khattar,s account of following points were case need to have a relook on was not considered by the said l n. 2. Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified 3. learned Single Judge. The learned senior counser for the petitioner has tried to make a distinction between the 'special Judge, and a .special court, so as to urge that the learned Judge has in his judgment referred to various decided cases which essentially pertain to 'special court,while as the .matter of Prevention of corruption Act is tried by .speciar Judge,. The second contention is that Section rg of the prevention of corruption Act deals with the question of sanction essentially and it is in that context that section 19(3) (c) is to be seen in the context of sanction only. Another connected. argument with this contention is that the section 19(c) is at perimetria with the language of section 397(2) sub clause (2) which provides that the interlocutory order witl . not be subject matter of revision petition. The onry difference between the section 19 of the prevention of corruption Act, 19gg and section 39T cr. p.c. is'that under section 19 of the Act non-obstante clause is used which cannot be incorporated. in sectio n 39T cr.p.c. and therefore it is urged that the learned Judge has tried to read non-obstante clause in section of 19 of the prevention of corruption Act in Section 39T Cr.p.C. I have carefully considered the submissions. The points which are sought to be raised have alread.y been deart with by the exhaustive judgment passed by the learned. Single Judge with which this court is in full agreement. So far as the argument of the learned senior 4. o '-1 t 5. t ,{ counsel for the petitioner regarding the user of non-obstante clause of Section 19 with Section 397 is concerned, it is stated that such an interpretation is not warranted or permissible in law. on the contrary, the special law always supersed.es the general law, therefore, the Prevention of Corruption Act being a special law has to prevail over the general provisions of Cr.P.C. to the extent to which provision is made in this regard. 6. so far as the question of 'special Judge, and ,special court, are concerned, these are inter-changeable terms used in various judgments which in my view wil not digress in any manner whatsoever from the ratio of the judgment laid d.own in Dharmabir Khattar's case and since the present case is squarely covered by the said judgment, accordingry, the present petition is dismissed ocToBER 12, 2OO9 KP 1r' V.K.SHALI, J.