PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) AN interesting question is raised about jurisdiction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate to deal with complaints alleging commission of offences punishable under various provisions of the Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'ipc'), along side those punishable under S. 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, the 'act' ). ( 2 ) IN the case at hand a complaint was filed alleging commission of various offences punishable under the IPC and S. 3 of the Act against the petitioners. By order D/- 27-1-1994 learned SDJM, Udala took cognizance of the offences and directed issue of summons to the present petitioners. With reference to various provisions of the Act, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned SDJM, Udala had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The stand of the opposite party in essence is that the offences punishable under the IPC were triable by the learned SDJM and there was no illegality in the action of the learned SDJM. ( 3 ) A conspectus of various provisions of the Act and the Criminal P. C. 1973 (in short, 'cr. P. C. ') is necessary for resolution of the controversy. Section 14 of the Act provides as follows :"special Court.- For the purpose of providing for speedy trial, the State Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify for each district a Court of Session to be a Special Court to try the offences under this Act. "there is no dispute that Sessions Court of Mayurbhanj, Baripada is the Court of Session specified to be a Special Court to try offences under the Act. Section 4 of the Cr. P. C. deals with trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws. The said section has two sub-sections. Sub-section (1) deals with investigation, inquiry and trial etc. of all offences under the IPC. Sub-section (2) deals with all offences under any other laws. It provides that all offences under any other laws shall be investigated, inquired into and tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigation, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. It provides that all offences under any other laws shall be investigated, inquired into and tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigation, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. A conjoint reading of both the sub-sections makes it clear that in the absence of special provisions made in the statute indicating that the offences will have to be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to that statute and same will have to be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions contained in the Cr. P. C. , the provisions of the Special Law would apply and prevail over the Cr. P. C. When the special law does not prescribe any particular procedure, provisions of the Cr. P. C. will govern the field of inquiry and trial of the case by the criminal Court. Cr. P. C. is the parent statute which provides for investigation, inquiry, trial, or, otherwise to deal with the offences. ( 4 ) SECTION 26 of the Cr. P. C. prescribes criminal courts by which the offences are triable under the IPC or other laws. There is no provision in the Cr. P. C. which bars trial of a case by superior Magistrate, notwithstanding that it is competent for a Magistrate of a lower grade to entertain the case. A court of session has jurisdiction to try a case once it has properly come before it, that is, on a legal order of commitment. The Special Court in contradistinction to the Sessions Court is a court of original jurisdiction. Whenever question arises as to what are its powers, that court is to be considered as a Court of original jurisdiction undaunted by any designation claptrap. This aspect was highlighted by the Apex Court in A. R. Antulay v. R. S. Nayak, AIR 1984 SC 718 : (1984 Cri LJ 647 ). The Act provides for specifying a Court of Session to be a Special Court to try the offence under the Act. When a Court of Session is so specified as a Special Court, it ceases to be a Court of Session as envisaged in the Code and it becomes a Court of original criminal jurisdiction. The Act provides for specifying a Court of Session to be a Special Court to try the offence under the Act. When a Court of Session is so specified as a Special Court, it ceases to be a Court of Session as envisaged in the Code and it becomes a Court of original criminal jurisdiction. ( 5 ) SECTION 3 of the Act provides for punishment for offences of atrocities. The Special Court under the Act is empowered to try cases concerning atrocities as defined in S. 2 (a) of the Act. Offences punishable under S. 3 of the Act are termed 'atrocity'. Cognizance is taken in any one of the four recognised modes. They are (a) upon commitment by a Magistrate as set out in S. 193, Cr. P. C. , and (b) upon the three modes as laid down in S. 190, Cr. P. C. , i. e. (i) upon a complaint, (ii) upon a report of a police officer, and (iii) where the Magistrate himself comes to know of the commission of offences through some other source. Except the mode of commitment by a Magistrate, Special Court can take cognizance of an offence for trial in any of the other three remaining modes set out in S. 190, Cr. P. C. ( 6 ) A question arises, can the Special Court deal with the offences falling under the IPC? In such a case, not only the Special Court should try the offences under the Act but also those available under the IPC. Any other view would frustrate and deter the purpose of enactment of the Act. Section 20 of the Act needs a reference in this context. It provides that the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any custom or usage or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law. Reference is also necessary to S. 220, Cr. P. C. Sub-section (1) of the said section is relevant. It provides that if, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence. Reference is also necessary to S. 220, Cr. P. C. Sub-section (1) of the said section is relevant. It provides that if, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence. Sub-section (3) deals with situations where the acts alleged constitute an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished. In such a case the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for each of such offences. If various acts alleged against an accused constitute offence under the Act and combination of those acts constitute offence under the IPC as well, the accused can be tried for both in the same proceedings. The irresistible conclusion is that if the acts alleged against the accused constitute atrocities as defined under S. 3 of the Act, as also offence under the IPC as well, the accused can be tried in the same proceedings. For that purpose no order of commitment by the Magistrate is necessary. A similar view was taken by the Kerala High Court In Re : Director General of Prosecution : 1993 Cri LJ 760. It goes without saying that a complaint is to be made before the Magistrate, who is competent to take cognizance of the offences. A situation may arise when a complaint is filed before a Magistrate alleging commission of offences punishable under the IPC, as well as under the Act. In such a case the Magistrate shall, if satisfied that prima facie materials exist to show commission of offences punishable under the Act, return it for presentation to the proper Court with an endorsement to that effect. If on the other hand the complaint is not in writing direct the complaint to the proper Court. Where even after accepting the allegations in toto commission of any offence under the Act is not disclosed, the applicability of the Act itself is ruled out. If on the other hand the complaint is not in writing direct the complaint to the proper Court. Where even after accepting the allegations in toto commission of any offence under the Act is not disclosed, the applicability of the Act itself is ruled out. In such a case if a matter is presented to the Special Court merely because allegations have been made regarding commission of any offence under the Act, but no offence is disclosed, it should act like a mechanical robot and accept the matter for adjudication. ( 7 ) JUDGED in the above background, the learned SDJM was not justified in taking cognizance of offence and directing issue of summons. The order D/- 27-1-1994 is set aside. In view of the accepted position that the allegations if accepted would constitute offence punishable under S. 3 of the Act, learned Magistrate shall return the complaint for presentation before the proper Court. Any action taken subsequent to the order D/- 27-1-1994 gets automatically nullified in view of the conclusion that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The application is accordingly disposed of. Order accordingly. .