Dismissing the writ petitions, the Court HELD: 1.1 Section 3 read with s. 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 clearly mandates that apart from an offence punishable under the PC Act, any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to commit or any abetment of any of the offences specified thereunder can also be tried by a Special Judge. Sub-s. (3) of s. 4 specifies that a Special Judge, when trying any case, can also try any offence, other than an offence specified in s.3, with which the accused may, under the Cr.P.C., be charged at the same trial. In view of s. 22 of PC Act, provisions of the Cr.P.C. are to be applied to trials for offence under the PC Act, subject to certain modifications. [para 17-18] 1.2 The second supplementary charge-sheet dated 12.12.2011 was filed in the FIR No. RC DAI 2009 A 0045 dated 21.10.2009. From the said second charge-sheet it is clear that the offences are alleged to have been committed by the petitioners in the course of 2G Scam Cases and, as such, they have been made accused in the 2G Scam Case. [para 21] 1.3 The co-accused of 2G Scam case charged under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act can be tried only by the Special Judge. The Special Judge alone can take cognizance of the offence specified in s. 3 (1) of PC Act and conspiracy in relation thereto. A magistrate cannot take cognizance of offence as specified in s. 3 (1) of the PC Act. The petitioners are co-accused in the said 2GScam case. In this background s. 220,Cr.P.C. will apply and the petitioners though accused of different offences, i.e., u/s 420/120-B IPC, alleged to have been committed in the course of 2G Spectrum transactions, u/s 223 of Cr. P.C. they may be charged and can be tried together with the other co-accused of 2G Scam cases.