JUDGMENT 1. - Since both the parties expressed their willingness and readiness to argue the case on merits and the record of the lower Court has already been received I heard the parties on the merits of the petition. 2. The short question involved in this petition U/s. 482 Cr.PC is, as was pointed out by the court in its order dated 17.10.95. "whether keeping in view all the facts enumerated in the FIR the learned Special Judge has its jurisdiction to try this Case which is not connected with the offence of dacoity. This question arises in the content of following facts:- 3. On Aril 23, 1990 at about 12.30 PM Kumari Rekha Sharma aged about 14 years was returning alongwith school-mates to her village Beawar from her school at Halena (Distt. Dholpur), when the girls reached 2 or 3 furlongs away from Halena the accused petitioner appeared from behind the trees with a desi fire arm `Katta'. The petitioner caught hold of Kumari Rekha by hand and made her fall on the ground. The rest of the girls ran away. The petitioner tried to molest Kumari Rekha and on her protest snatched her ear-rings and nose ring after cutting her ears and nose with a knife. He took away her wrist watch also. On shrieks raised by Kumari Rekha her uncle Shri Bachu Lal rached there whereupon the petitioner ran away. Kumari Rekha was taken to General Hospital at Bharatpur where Sri Uttam Lal ASI recorded her statement on 25.4.90 at 5.50 p.m. and forwarded the same to Police Station Halena where crime No. 32/90 U/s. 323, 324, 326, 307, 379 IPC was registered. On the police report u/s. 173 Cr.PC having been submitted before him the Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences u/s. 341, 354, 324, 326, 394 & 397 IPC. Since cognizance had been taken by the Learned Magistrate for offence U/s. 397 IPC as well he sent the case to the Special Court constituted u/s. 6 of the Rajasthan Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1986 (for short, the Act). It is that order of the Magistrate dated April 4, 1995 which is being challenged by way of this petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. 4. It is that order of the Magistrate dated April 4, 1995 which is being challenged by way of this petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. 4. At the way outset it may be observed that it is the legality and validity of the order dated 4.4.1995 passed by the learned Magistrate sending the petition for trial by the special Judge, Special Court, Dholpur which is, in fact being challenged by way of this petition. The legality and validity of an order or the regularity of the proceedings of a subordinate Court can be challenged by way of a revision petition either before the Sessions Judge or before this court. Where a remedy against a wrong is provided in by a specific provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, redressal of the wrong would not ordinarily be sought by way of invoking the exceptional jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. The powers of the High Court u/s. 482 Cr.PC are to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or to secure ends of Justice. The impugned order is being challenged on the ground of the same being contrary to the provisions of the Code and the Act. In other words the jurisdiction of the Magistrate in sending the case to the Special Judge for trial is under challenge and thus the exercise of his jurisdiction by the Magistrate is being questioned. Such a position attracts the provisions of Section 397 Cr.PC and not section 482 Cr.PC. This petition is therefore not maintainable as a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. However, since this court is of the opinion that validity and legality of the impugned order and required to be examined by this court, it is entertained as a petition under Section 397 Cr.PC. 5. Mr. Alok Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that only those offence which are specified in the Schedule appended to the Act and also those offences which from part of or arise out of or are connected with the commission of dacoity in a dacoity affected area are triable by the special court constituted u/s. 6 of the Act. Alok Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that only those offence which are specified in the Schedule appended to the Act and also those offences which from part of or arise out of or are connected with the commission of dacoity in a dacoity affected area are triable by the special court constituted u/s. 6 of the Act. Since the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner in the present case were neither committed in the course of committing a dacoity nor do they form part of or arise out of or are in any manner connected with the commission of dacoity, they are triable by the regular court of a Sessions Judge. In this behalf Mr. Sharma relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Jabbar v. State of Rajasthan (Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1981 page 620) . The learned Public Prosecutor could not demolish the argument of Mr. Sharma. 6. The menace of organised or un-organised gangs of Dacoity operating in certain areas of the State of Rajasthan, particularly those lying in the vicinity of revines of Chambal river, caused concern to the State Govt. Therefore, in order to tackle the problem effectively and to break the chain of vested interests assisting such gang and also with a view to make provision of speedy trial and punishment of such offenders the State Legislature enacted the RAJASTHAN DACOITY AFFECTED AREAS ACT, 1986 which was brought into force w.e.f. September 23, 1985. This Act is intended to work as a Code in itself for the trial and punishment of the offenders who commit the offences, specified in the schedule to the Act and the offences forming part of or arising out of or connected with the commission of dacoity, in a dacoity affected area sec. 2(c) of the Act defines the term scheduled offence as under:- S. 2(c) "scheduled offence", in relation to a dacoity affected area, means an offence specified in the schedule appended to this Act including an offence forming part of, arising out of, or connected with the commission of, dacoity." 7. A close reading of the definition of the term scheduled offence which is intended to be punished in accordance with the provisions of the Act brings out the following ingredients of such offence:- 1. The offence must have been committed in relation to a dacoity affected area. 2. A close reading of the definition of the term scheduled offence which is intended to be punished in accordance with the provisions of the Act brings out the following ingredients of such offence:- 1. The offence must have been committed in relation to a dacoity affected area. 2. The offence must be specified in the schedule appended to the Act. 3. The offence which forms part of, or arise out of or is connected with the commission of dacoity would also amount to scheduled offence for the purposes of the Act. 8. A study of the above-mentioned ingredients of the term `scheduled offence' clearly discloses that only those offences which are specified in the schedule to the Act and which in any of the ways mentioned in the definition have a connection with the commission of dacoity are intended to be punished under and in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is not each and every offence that is required to be dealt with under this Act. Offences committed against the persons or properties of the residents in the dacoity affected area and which offences do not have any relation, direct or remote, to the commission of dacoity are not intended to be dealt with order this Act. This position is clear when the very object and purpose of this Act as is revealed by its preamble also and the Item of the offences (As specified in the schedule appended to the Act) are kept in mind. The schedule to the Act specified the following kinds of offences, namely:- (1) Offences punishable under section 216-A, 302, 303, 304, 307, 308, 311, 325, 3S6, 327, 329, 333, 363, 364, 365, 368, 386, 387, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act XLV of 1860). (2) Kidnapping or abducting any person for ransom. (3) Assembling or making preparation or attempt for kidnapping or abducting any person for ransom. (4) Making or mending or performing any part of the process of making or mending, buying, selling, possessing, disposing of, supplying or carrying arms or ammunition or A explosives for the commission of dacoity. (5) Mediating in the settlement, or standing surety for the payment of ransom to an abductor or a kidnapper. (4) Making or mending or performing any part of the process of making or mending, buying, selling, possessing, disposing of, supplying or carrying arms or ammunition or A explosives for the commission of dacoity. (5) Mediating in the settlement, or standing surety for the payment of ransom to an abductor or a kidnapper. (6) Spying of the persons assembled before or after the commission of dacoity or preparing to commit dacoity. (7) Receiving benefits from the persons committing all or any of the above-mentioned offences. 9. A combined reading of the various categories of the specified offences as given in the schedule clearly tells that two terms namely `dacoity' and ransom have invariably been used in relation to the offences specified in the schedule. While examining the scope of the jurisdiction of the Special Court u/6. 7 of the Act not only the nature of the offence along with its relation to the commission of dacoity and/or demand of ransom shall have to be kept in mind but also the very object and purposes of the Act itself cannot be ignored. Sec. 7 which speaks of the jurisdiction of the Special Court provides that: 7. Jurisdiction of Special Court:-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or in any other 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 charged under any law for the time being in force. Sub-Sec. (1) starts with a non-obstinate clause and excludes the jurisdiction of the regular court to try a scheduled offence. Sub-Sec. (2) permits trial of offence other than a scheduled offence also by a Special Court but the jurisdiction of the Special Court to try such other offence would arise only when the special court is trying a scheduled offence and the offender of such `other offence' may be charged with the commission of the other offence. If he cannot be so charged with the other offence he cannot be tried for such other offence along with his trial for the scheduled offence. 10. If he cannot be so charged with the other offence he cannot be tried for such other offence along with his trial for the scheduled offence. 10. In the case of Jabbar v. State of Rajasthan (supra) this court rained the scope of the jurisdiction of the Special Court in the context of a bail application u/s. 439 Cr.PC read with S. 5 of the Act. It was observed by Dave J. that:- "The Special Court created under the Act while dealing with the scheduled offences as given in the schedule will only consider those offences under the Act, if they form part, or arise out of, or connected in any manner with the offence of dacoity and in those cases where the offences mentioned in the Schedule are committed but not connected with the dacoity, then they will be dealt by the regular criminal courts under the Code of Criminal Procedure." 11. A same view was also expressed by the Full Bench of Madya Pradesh High Court in Gulab Chand v. State of M.P & others, 1982 Cr.LJ 665 , while interpreting the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Dacoity Affected Areas Act 1981. This court had agreed with the view expressed by their Lordships of the Madya Pradesh High Court. With respect I am in full agreement with Dave J. that if an offence, though committed in a Dacoity affected area, is not connected with the commission of dacoity in any manner and is also not triable as per provisions of Sub-Section (2) of Section 7 of the Act along with the trial for a scheduled offence, then the jurisdiction of the regular court to try such offence is not excluded. 12. In the instant case a bare reading of the First Information Report reveals that the offences alleged to have been committed in this case had no relation whatsoever with the commission of dacoity. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the regular court to try-the offences in this case is not ousted. 13. Km. Rekha is alleged to have been restrained on her way to her village, molested and deprived of her ornaments and wrist watches. The offences were though allegedly committed in a dacoity affected area and some of them may even be mentioned in the schedule to the Act. 13. Km. Rekha is alleged to have been restrained on her way to her village, molested and deprived of her ornaments and wrist watches. The offences were though allegedly committed in a dacoity affected area and some of them may even be mentioned in the schedule to the Act. Yet they are neither related to the commission of the offence of any dacoity or form part of, arise out of or in any manner connected with the commission of any offence of dacoity. These were, therefore, triable by the regular court and not by the Special Court. The learned Magistrate erred in law and on facts in sending the petitioner to face his trial before the Special Court. 14. In the result the order of the learned Magistrate is set aside and the case is remitted to him with a direction to pass appropriate orders in the case according to law in the light of the observation made herein above. *******