As per case facts, the Appellant was charge-sheeted for offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and filed an application to discharge him, arguing that the trial judge lacked ... jurisdiction as their appointment was not as a Special Judge under the 1988 Act. After the trial judge rejected this, the Appellant moved the Karnataka High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings, but the High Court dismissed the petition. The question arose whether a notification issued under Section 26 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, appointing a Special Judge for offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, would also hold good for the purpose of Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the applicability of Section 26 is not restrictive, extending to proceedings under the 1988 Act due to a "deeming fiction" and the repeal and saving provisions of Section 30(2). The court emphasized reading the Act as a whole, concluding that a Special Judge appointed under the 1952 Act is deemed to be a Special Judge under the 1988 Act, possessing the necessary jurisdiction to try new cases. The appeal was dismissed.