V.S. DAVE, J.—This reference has been made by learned Special Judge Dacoity Affected Area, Karauli vide his order of reference, dated 20-6-1988 where in he has framed the following question for answer : "Whether the Magistrate having jurisdiction over the dacoity affected areas are competent to perform functions in relation to scheduled offences, prior to the stage of trial before the Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Areas"? 2. Almost connected with the aforesaid question the point also emerge in Mansingh vs. State S.B, Cr. Misc. Petition No. 369/88, Heera Lal vs. Johari S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 178/89 and Hari Ram vs. State S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2859/88. These cases therefore, have also teen heard along with this reference though they will be disposed of by separate orders purely based on the result of this reference. 3. Before appreciating the point referred to it will be essential to give the back ground in which this question has arisen. On a written report from one Manohari Mal the police station Karauli registered a case under section 384 IPC and Mansingh was arrested in the said case who was sent to Judicial custody. Against accused Chhutalli and Rati warrants were issued on application from Investigating Officer. The warrant against Chhutalli came unserved and since Rati was also not available proceedings were drawn under sec. 82/83, Cr.P.C. After completing the investigation charge sheet was submitted in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karauli by A.P.P. against accused Mansingh and absconder Rati for offence under section 398 IPC Offence under section 398, IPC is a scheduled offence as defined under Raj. Dacoity Area Act, 1986 (there in after referred to as the Act of 1986). When the charge-sheet was submitted before learned A.C.J.M. he vide his order, dated 11-5-1988 came to the conclusion that charge-sheet should have been directly submitted in the court of Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area, Karauli, since section 398 IPC is a scheduled offence and returned the chargesheet to the A.P.P. for proceeding in the competent court. When the accused was presented before the learned Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area he did not agree with the view taken by the learned Magistrate and since the question was of great public and private importance he referred it to this court. 4. When the accused was presented before the learned Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area he did not agree with the view taken by the learned Magistrate and since the question was of great public and private importance he referred it to this court. 4. The learned A.C.J.M. while interpreting the provisions of section 8 of the Act of 1986 gave his reasonings in paragraphs 5 and 6 of his order as under; ^^/kkjk 194 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj lsku U;k;k/khk] lokbZ ek/kksiqj ;k jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; tks/kiqj }kjk vuqlwfpr vijk/kh ftlesa Jo.kk/khu vijk/k lfEefyr gS] ds izdj.kksa dks fof"B U;k;ky; MdSrh izHkkfor {kS= djkSyh dks vUoh{kk gsrq lqiqnZ djus gsrq dksbZ foks"k vknsk izlkfjr ugha dj j[ks gSA djkSyh mi[k.M ea mnHkwr gksus okys lsku izdj.kksa dh vUoh{kk gsrq izdj.kksa dks vij lsku u;k;ky; djkSyh dks lqiqnZ fd;s tkus dk lsku U;k;k/khk lokbZ ek/kksiqj }kjk foks"k vknsk izlkfjr fd;k gqvk gSaA /kkjk 8 vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr ;g micfU/kr fd;k tkrk gS fd foks"k U;k;ky; ds lSku U;k;k/khk ekuk tk;sxk ysfdu fofk"B U;k;k/khk MdSrh izHkkfor {kS= djkSyh ds U;k;ky; dks izdj.kksa dh vUoh{kk gsrq lqiqnZ fd;s tkus dk dksbZ foks"k vknsk izlkfjr ugha fd;k tkrk gSA blfy, fdlh foks"k vknsk ds vHkko esa mDr izdj.k dh vUoh{kk gsrq fofk"B U;k;k/khk] MdSrh izHkkfor {ks= djkSyh dh vUoh{kk gsrq lqiqnZ ugha fd;k tk ldrkA** tgka rd /kkjk 193 na-iz-la- dk izu gS mlesa ;g izko/kku gS fd dksbZ lsku U;k;ky; lsku lqiqnZxh ;ksX; vijk/kksa dh vUoh{kk ds fy, izlaKku rc rd ugha ysxk tc rd fd izdj.k eftLVªsV }kjk lSku U;k;ky; dks lqiqnZ ugha fd;k tkosA ysfdu orZeku izdj.k esa ,slk ugha gS D;ksafd /kkjk 8¼1½ vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr foks"k U;k;ky; dks izlaKku ysus dh kfDr;ka iznku dh x;h gSA blfy, ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd foks"k U;k;ky; dk vuqlwfpr vijk/k ftlesa lsku Jo.kk/khu vijk/k lfEefyr gS dks lqiqnZ fd;s fcuk izlaKku ugha fy;k tk ldrk vkSj vUoh{kk ugha dj ldrk D;ksafd /kkjk 8¼2½ vf/kfu;e 86 ds vUrxZr ;g micfU/kr fd;k x;k gS fd vuqlwfpr vijk/k ds izdj.kksa dh vUoh{kk izkjEHk djrs le; foks"k U;k;ky; ,slk ekusxk fd izdj.k lsku lqiqnZ fd;k x;k gSA vUoh{kk ds fy, n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds vUrxZr fu/kkZfjr lsku izdj.k dh izfdz;k viuk;h tk;sxhA ;fn bu izko/kkuksa dk ;g vkk; gksrk fd lsku izdj.k dh izfdz;k viuk;h tk;sxhA ;fn bu izko/kkuksa dk ;g vkk; gksrk fd lsku Jo.kk/khu vuqlwfpr vijk/kksa ds izdj.k foks"k U;k;ky; dks ml {ks= ds eftLVªsV }kjk vUoh{kk gsrq lqiqnZ fd;k tkos rks kk;n ;g micU/k ugha fd;k tkrk fd vuqlwfpr vijk/kksa dh foks"k U;k;ky; vUoh{kk izkjEHk djrs le; ,slk ekusxk fd izdj.k lsku lqiqnZ fd;k x;k gSA /kkjk 8 esa dsoy ;g miyC/k fd;k x;k gS fd foks"k U;k;ky; vuqlwfpr vijk/kksa ds izdj.kksa dh vUoh{kk ds le; lsku izdj.k ds fy, fu/kkZfjr n.M lafgrk dh izfdz;k ds vuqlkj vUoh{kk djsxkA nkf.Md fof/k lakks/ku vf/kfu;e 1952 ds vUrxZr cus foks"k U;k;ky;ksa esa izdj.kksa dh lSku lqiqnZxh dks oftZr fd;k x;k gSa vf/kfu;e 1986 ds vUrxZr ,slk dksbZ izko/kku ugha fd;k x;k gS fd lsku Jo.kk/khu vuqlwfpr vijk/kksa dks foks"k U;k;ky; dks ml {ks=kf/kdkj ds eftLVªsV vUoh{kk gsrq foks"k U;k;ky; dks lqiqnZ djsaxs vf/kfu;e 1986 dh /kkjk 8 ds vUrxZfr foks"k U;k;ky; dks /kkjk 190 na-iz-la- dks izlaKku ysus dh] /kkjk 207 na-iz-la- dh rFkk 307] 308 na-iz-la- dh eftLVªsV dks kfDr;ka iznku dh x;h gS blfy, vuqlwfpr vijk/kksa ds vfHk;ksx i= lh/ks gh foks"k U;k;ky; esa izLrqr gksus pkfg, vkSj foks"k U;k;ky; bu izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr micfU/kr eftLVªsV dh foks"k kfDr;kas dk iz;ksx dj ldrk gSA lEcfU/kr iqfyl Fkkuksa }kjk vuqlwfpr vijk/kksa eaas izFke iath—r lwpuk,a tCr dh x;h lEifr vkfn dh lwpuk,a] vfUre izfrosnu] izkbosV ifjokn ¼bLrxklk½ lh/ks vf/kfu;e 1986 ds vUrxZr xfBr U;k;ky; esa gh izLrqr gksus pkfg, D;ksafd ,slk ugha gksus ls vf/kfu;e 1986 dks vf/kfu;fer djus dk mís; gh fu"Qy gks tkosxk tcfd izLrkouk eaas bl vf/kfu;e dks vf/kfu;fer djus dk mís; vuqlwfpr vijk/kksa dh kh?kz vUoh{kk fd;s tkus dk gSA ;fn eftLVªsV U;k;ky;ksa esa ;g lHkh dk;Zokgh dh tkosxh rks muesa yEck le; yxus dh lEHkkouk jgrh gS D;ksafd v/khuLFk U;k;ky; esa yfEcr izdj.kksa dh la[;k cgqr vf/kd gSA dsoy ek= fjek.M dkxtkr eftLVªsV U;k;ky; esa gksus ls gh vfHk;ksx i= mlh U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;s tkus vko;d ugha gSA 5. From the aforesaid findings it can be inferred that learned Magistrate meant that under section 8 of the Act of 1986 special procedure has been laid down for functioning of the Special Court which is identical to section 190 Cr. P.C. and the Special Court have also been asked to follow a similar procedure for dealing with the case under the Act of 1986 as far trial of the Sessions cases provided the courts perform function of Magistrate under section 207, Cr.P.C. and if the case has been committed to the court of Sessions for trial, where from a case is about scheduled offence mentioned in the Act of 1986, therefore, arises which is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the charge-sheet has to be filed directly before the Sessions Judge because firstly no special orders have been passed by learned Session Judge, Sawaimadhopur or High Court of Rajasthan under section 194 Cr. P.C. whereby the cases exclusively triable by Sessions court should be handed over to the special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area. Hence there are no special power for making over these cases to the Special Judge for trial. Secondly, according to section 193 Cr. P.C. no Sessions Court can take cognizance of the offence unless the case is committed to it by a Magistrate under the Code and in view of section 8 (1) of the Act of 1986 the Special Judge has been directly empowered to take cognizance and as per section 8 (2) of the Act of 1986, while starting the trial he is obliged to follow the procedure laid down for Sessions Cases under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, had the legislature meant in commital proceeding they would not have enacted a provision like this. Thirdly, under the provisions of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 there is a bar about commitment to Special Judge, while there is no such power in the Act of 1986. Fourthly, a composite reading of section 8 of the Act of 1986 and section 190 Cr. P.C. 207, 307 and 308, Cr. P.C. it is clear that Special Judge has all the powers of a Magistrate and lastly that all the First Information Reports registered at police stations the information about the seized goods. Fourthly, a composite reading of section 8 of the Act of 1986 and section 190 Cr. P.C. 207, 307 and 308, Cr. P.C. it is clear that Special Judge has all the powers of a Magistrate and lastly that all the First Information Reports registered at police stations the information about the seized goods. Final Reports and private complaints are, all required to be forwarded to the Special Judge also the purpose of the Act is frustraetd because it would delay the proceedings due to the fact that the Magistrateare over burdoned. 6. The learned Sp. Judge did not agree with the aforesaid reasonings given by learned A C J M. He referred to various provisions of the Act of 1986 and considered the scheme of the Act. He also considered the provisions of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 and after comparing the provisions of the two Acts came to the conclusion that the trial of warrant case begins with the presentation of the challan, while begining of a sessions cases is with the commital for trial. He considered that schedule of offences appended with the Act of 1986 includes warrant trials which begins as soon as the challan is presented as mentioned above. As the trial under the Act of 1986 is that a Sessions case enabling the provision has been incorporated in section 8(1) of the Act of 1986 empowering the Special Court also to take direct cognizance for such warrant trial scheduled offences a.05.where ever necessary, perform the function of the Magistrate under sec. 207, Cr. P.C. and also empower it to proceed to try the cases as if the cases have been committed to the court of Sessions for trial under the provisons of the Code. Had the intention of the legislation been to empower the Special Court to take direct cognizance in all cases irrespective of warrant or the Sessions trial cases, then the words whenever necessary and as if would not have been incorporated in proviso under sub ss. (1) and (2) of s. 8 of the Act of 1986. The learned Special Judge also, while interpreting sub sec. (3) of section 8 of the Act of 1986, held that this provision restricts the Magistral function except those which have been expressly provided for and Special Judge has been deemed to be a Sessions Judge for trial of scheduled offences. The learned Special Judge also, while interpreting sub sec. (3) of section 8 of the Act of 1986, held that this provision restricts the Magistral function except those which have been expressly provided for and Special Judge has been deemed to be a Sessions Judge for trial of scheduled offences. In the opinion of the Judge, therefore, function of the Magistrate up to the investigation and inquiry stage shall be taken up by the Magistrate having jurisdiction over that area up to the stage of trial which would include issuance of warrants of arrest, search proclamation and attachment (except a reference from District Magistrate for disposal of property), order under section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. recording of statements of the witnesses under sec. 164 Cr. P.C. custody remands under sec. 167, Cr. P. C. release of the accused under section 169, Cr.P.C. police reports under sec. 173 Cr. P. C. (except of challan of warrant trial cases in which trial would straight-way start with presentation of challan of directly in Special Court in view of section 8 (1) of the Act of 1986 and the proviso therein) and complaints to the Magistrates under section 200-203, Cr. P.C. The learned Special Judge referred to a decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court (1) and held that Special Judge is empowered to make reference under sec. 395 Cr. P. C. for seeking guidance from Honble High Court and he thus made this reference on the point referred to above. 7. On receipt of the aforesaid reference assistance of learned Advocate General, Addl. Advocate General and other lawyers was sought and the case has been argued at great length. 8. At the out-set I may observe that while enacting the provisions of 1986 due care has not been taken as was required of the legal draftsman, with the result that ambiguities had been left in this Act. Even the definition of the Scheduled offence as given in defining section 2 is not happly worded. 9. In order to appreciate the point referred to, it is essential to go through the scheme of the Act. In the State of Raj. there are certain Districts, particular areas of with are infested with dacoits and the offence relating to robbery, dacoity, murders with dacoity so and so-forth are rampant. 9. In order to appreciate the point referred to, it is essential to go through the scheme of the Act. In the State of Raj. there are certain Districts, particular areas of with are infested with dacoits and the offence relating to robbery, dacoity, murders with dacoity so and so-forth are rampant. In order to curb effectively the commission of such offences and which are concerned with the commission of dacoity or from part of or arise out of such offences the State Government think it proper to make law. (a) for notifying those areas as dacoity affected areas; (b) for specifying such offences as scheduled offences; (c) for making provisions of speedily trial and punishment thereof; (d) for attachment of properties acquired length the commission of such offences; (e) for any other matter connected there with or incidental thereto. and the law enacted is Rajasthan Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1986 which has been brought into force with effect from September 23, 1985. In this Act of 1986 section 2 is a saction giving meaning to various words, i.e., defining clause In section 2(1 )(b) of this Act there has to be an area which may be declared by the State Government under section 3 of the Act of 1986. The Government of Rajasthan in this respect issued a Notification No. F. 1/6(11) Home/5/81, dated July 25, 1987 and declared the whole of the Revenue District of Dholpur (2) whole Revenue District of Bharatpur except areas covered by Tehsils Deeg, Nagar, Nadbai and Kama; and the areas covered Tehsils Karauli, Sapotara and Hindaun of Sawaimadhopur District. The Government of Rajasthan also in exercise of the powers conferred under section 6 of the Act of 1986, in consulta-tion with the High Court notified there Special Court one at Bharatpur another at Karauli mentioning the territorial jurisdiction of each of them vide Notifica-tion No. P2(5) Nyaya/87, Jaipur, dated August 10,1987. The Government of Rajasthan also in exercise of the powers conferred under section 6 of the Act of 1986, in consulta-tion with the High Court notified there Special Court one at Bharatpur another at Karauli mentioning the territorial jurisdiction of each of them vide Notifica-tion No. P2(5) Nyaya/87, Jaipur, dated August 10,1987. The jurisdiction of these Special Court has been given under section 7 of the Act of 1986 which reads as under: "Section 7—Jurisdiction of Special Court—(1) Not with standing any thing contained in the Code or in any order law for the time being in force, a scheduled offence shall be triable only by a special Court; (2) While trying any scheduled offence, the Special Court may also try at the same trial any offence other than the scheduled offence with which a scheduled offender may be charge under any law for the time being in force". A reading of the aforesaid section make it clear that the cases which are triable exclusively by the Special Courts are the scheduled offences as defined in section 2(I)(C) of the Act of 1986 which reads as under: Section 2 (l)(c)—Scheduled offence in relation to a dacoity-affected area, means an offence specified in the schedule appended to his Act, including an offence forming part of, arising out of, or connected with the commission of, dacoity. 10. When this reference came and I with the assistance of the learned counsel for parties and learned Advocate General read the Act clause by clause I found that there are blurred areas have been left out regarding specifying the exclusive jurisdiction of Special Court. The Act should have been drafted in a manner which should not have left the scope for giving different interpretations. 11. The Special Court which are exclusive Courts for trying the sheduled offences, have also been empowered to try other offences than the sheduled offences with which the offender may be charged for any other law for the time being in force in case the situation arises while trying the accused for a scheduled offence but the limitation is that it should be in the same trial. Therefore, particularly the Special Judge of the Special Court has to say the scheduled offences and the offences incidental thereto. This definition of the scheduled offence is not happily warned, according to me, and is piece of defective of a statute. Therefore, particularly the Special Judge of the Special Court has to say the scheduled offences and the offences incidental thereto. This definition of the scheduled offence is not happily warned, according to me, and is piece of defective of a statute. I have dealt with in great details this aspect of the matter in (2) 1987 WLN (UC) 599 wherein after detailed discussion I have held as under : "I am firmly of the opinion that the word including mentioned in Section (c) of the Act is an erroneous phrasealogy used and the offence included in the schedule will only be scheduled offence only when such offences forms part of, or arises out of or is, in any way, connected with the commission of dacoity and it is only those cases, section 5 of the Act would be applicable", The procedure and powers of such Special Courts with which we are concerned in this reference are created under section 6 of the Act of 1986, have been given in section 8 of the Act of 1986 which reads as under : "Sec. 8.—Procedure and powers of Special Courts— (1) A Special Court may take cognizance of any scheduled offence— (a) upon receiving a complaint of fact which constitute such offence; or (b) upon a police report of such facts; or (c) upon information received from any person or a Police Officer, or upon its own knowledge that such offence has been committed. (2) A special court shall, while trying a scheduled offence, follow the procedure as prescribed by the Code for the trial of a sessions case. Provided that a special court may, where ever necessary, perform the functions of a Magistrate under section 207 of the Code and proceed to try the case as if the case had been committed to the court of Sessions for trial under the provisions of the Code. A perusal of section 8 of the Act 1986 shows that it has various clauses for various purposes and, therefore, unless there is paraphrasing of the same it will be difficult to make out a scene. In sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act of 1986, Special court has been given the same powers as have been given to a Magistrate under section 190 Cr.P.C. in respect of a scheduled offence. In sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act of 1986, Special court has been given the same powers as have been given to a Magistrate under section 190 Cr.P.C. in respect of a scheduled offence. 1 have already mentioned above that scheduled offence would mean the scheduled offences as I have interpreted in (2) (1987 WLN(UC) 599) hence the interpretation is being given keeping in mind the judgment in (2) (supra). The words used by the Legislature in this section is : (a) a special court; (b) may take cognizance. (c) of any scheduled offence. There is no difficulty about (a) and (c), but only interpretation will be required the word may take cognizance, whether the word may would exclude any other court for taking cognizance in respect of the scheduled offence or only enable the Special Court also to take cognizance ie. to say that the Special Court as well as may other ordinary court has the jurisdiction to take cognizance in respect of scheduled offence in dacoity affected area or it is only the Special Court which can take cognizance of any scheduled offence. This has to be read along with section 7 where exclusive jurisdiction has been given to the Special Court for trying. Scheduled offences where the word trial shall be given such a wide interpretation so as to cover even an act of taking cognizance or an enquiry in the case. Before expressing final opinion it will be purposefull to refer to other provisions of this section also. Sub-Section (2) of section 8 of the Act of 1986 lays down the procedure. According to this sub-section while holding the trial of a scheduled offence by the Special Court the Judge shall follow the same procedure which is given in the Code of Criminal Procedure laying a Sessions Case. For trying all cases which are scheduled offence the procedure or Sessions trial as given in Code of Criminal Procedure shall be followed. How ever, the legislature added a proviso to this and, therefore, this sub-section cannot be read as a law laying down general preposition. According to the provision the Special Court has been given a discretion to perform the function of a Magistrate under s. 207 Cr.P.C. whereever necessary and if, the court chooses to perform that function. 12. How ever, the legislature added a proviso to this and, therefore, this sub-section cannot be read as a law laying down general preposition. According to the provision the Special Court has been given a discretion to perform the function of a Magistrate under s. 207 Cr.P.C. whereever necessary and if, the court chooses to perform that function. 12. Under s. 207 Cr.P.C. the Legislation has enumerated the various documents copies of which the accused is entitled to receive before the commencement of the trial in cases instituted on police report under s. 173 (2) Cr.PC. A duty has been cast upon a Magistrate taking cognizance to supply the copies of all such documents except volums documents in respect of which he has the competence to direct inspection thereof by the accused. He has also to see that copies of documents are furnished free of cost of the accused. Thus, a provision in Code of Criminal Procedure has been incorporated regarding the cases which are tried both by the Magistrate as well as by the Court of Sessions. Separate provisions has been made regarding supply of copies of statements and the documents to the accused in other cases triable by the court of Sessions which are exclusively triable by Sessions Judge. Hence in cases where charge-sheet is directly submitted before the learned Judge of the Special Court, he will also perform the function of a Magistrate under s. 207 Cr.P.C. and then himself will proceed to try the cases as if the case has been committed to his court for trial. In other words functions proceeding trial have also to be performed by him, but it is limited to the cases where his jurisdiction about scheduled offences defined under the Act. In any cases the legislature has intended to combine the powers both of a Magistrate proceeding commitment as well as the Sessions Judge to one and the same authority i.e. Special Judge, so as to avoid unnecessary delay, but at the same time it cannot be held that jurisdiction of a Magistrate is outset from taking cognizance and committing the case to the Court of Special Judge, as the court of Special Judge has to try the offence as per procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure for trial of a Sessions Case. Analogy of cases tried by Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act would not apply to the cases triable under this Act because the procedure to be followed by the Special Judge under the prevention of Corruption Act is that of trial of warrant case by a Magistrate as is specifically Provided for under sub-s. 3(a) as inserted in S.3 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 on Feb. 27, 1958. The learned Magistrate had taken the view that he has no jurisdiction to take cognizance or handle the case pre-trial for any purpose what so ever is based on his reading the provisions of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, without comparing the Provisions of Rajasthan Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1986 with the provisions of the aforesaid Criminal Law Amendment Act or other Acts meant for trying C.B.I. cases or the provisions of Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act. In all those Act it has been absolutely clarified that both Special Judges enjoy the status of the Session Judge yet they are deemed to be Magistrate while trying the cases. The Special Judge at Anti Dacoity Court is a Session Judge for all intendments and purpose and the procedure for trial is exclusively that of a Sessions trial, though in special circumstances he has been also empowered to take cognizance of the scheduled offences. Yet there is another angle with which the case can be examined. The scheduled offence mentioned in the scheduled attached to the Act includes cases for which warrant trial is provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure as such offences u/ss. 216 A, 363, 365, 368, 369, 381, 386 I.P.C. Similarly regarding kidnapping and abducting any person for ransom for making or arranging or performing any part of the process and making or arranging buying, selling, possessing, disposing of supplying or carrying arms or ammunitions or explosives for the purpose of commission of dacoity etc. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure warrant cases are not required to be committed for trial and the trial begins as soon as the challan is presented, while the trial in Sessions cases starts after commitment to the court of Sessions. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure warrant cases are not required to be committed for trial and the trial begins as soon as the challan is presented, while the trial in Sessions cases starts after commitment to the court of Sessions. In the Act of 1986 the procedure for trial as sessions trial is provided and it is for this reason that Special Judge has also been given the powers of the Magistrate under section 207 Cr.P.C. and the word APH1P mentioned therein assumes importance and therefore the phraseology may proceed to try the case as if the case has been committed to Sessions for trial under the provisions of the Code are very significant. Similarly the words MAY and WHEREVER NECESSARY used in sub section 8(1) of the Act of 1986 are significant. If the intention of the legislature would have been that the Special Court be empowered for taking direct cognizance in all cases, irrespective of the warrant trial or the sessions trial cases, then the word WHEREVER NECESSARY, and AS IF would not have been incorporated in the proviso under sub-section 8(1) (2) of the Act of 1986 and similarly sec. 207, Cr.P.C. would not have been mentioned and all other provisions such as for issuance of warrant of arrest search warrants custody remand released of the accused under section 169 Cr.P.C. etc. would also have been mentioned. 13. As per aforesaid discussions. I am of the opinion that the magistrates are not debarred from functioning upto the investigation and enquiry stage and they have the jurisdiction over that area upto the stage of trial includes issuance of warrants of arrest, search warrants, proclamation and attachment (except a reference from D.M. for disposal of the property). Order under section 164, Cr.P.C. regarding of statements of the witnesses under section 164, Cr.P.C. custody remands under sec. 167, Cr.P.C. release of accused under sec. 156(3). Cr.P.C. receiving police reports under sec. 173 Cr.P.C. (except the charge sheet for warrant trial cases where in trial shall straight commence with\ presentation of the charge-sheet in view of section 8(1) of the Act of 1986 | and the proviso thereunder), to receive complaints under section 200 and 203, Cr.P.C. etc. 14. In the result I accept the reference and set aside the order of the learned Addl. 14. In the result I accept the reference and set aside the order of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Karauli dated, May 11, 1988 and hold that the Magistrates who have jurisdiction over the dacoity affected areas are competent to perform the function in relation to the scheduled offences prior to the stage of trial before the Special Judge in the matter indicated above.