Honble KHAN, J. – Heard the learned counsel for the parties. (2). On March 29th, 1992 when Smt. Basanti and Smt. Mishro, members of Scheduled Caste community were cleaning the space infront of the shops situated at Jodhpura Tiraha Stand, Gopal, another member of the same community reached there and forbade them from cleaning the said place. Gopal thereafter went to Janardan who is not a member of the said community and returned to the Tiraha along with the aforesaid Janardan. The two, are stated, to have assaulted the two ladies with lathies causing them simple injuries. The report of this incident was lodged by Sh. Fakirchand with the police. The police registered a crime No. 29/92 U/s. 323 and 341 I.P.C. against the said two persons but after conducting investigation came to the conclusion that no officence under those sections had been committed in the present case. The Final Report came up before the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar for passing necessary orders. On going through the police report u/s. 169 Cr.P.C. and the documents submitted alongwith there, the learned Sessions Judge formed the opinion that there existed a prima facie case for taking cognizance of the offences punishable U/s. 323 and 341 I.P.C. and summoning Janardan Das, the present petitioner and Gopal as accused for the same. The learned Sessions Judge therefore, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner and Gopal and summoned them as accused in the case. It is against that order dated 3.5.93 that the present petition U/s. 482/483 Cr.P.C. has been presented by Janardan accused in this Court. (3). In the course of dictating this order the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in case this Court is of the opinion that the present petition should be dismissed then this Court should not express any opinion over the merits of the case. I fully agree with the view of the learned counsel for the petitioner but at the same time I observe an illegality in the impugned order. In my opinion such illegality is required to be rectified. (4). Section 20 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 1989 (for short the Act of 1989) excludes the application of such other sister legislations which are in consistent with the subject matter dealt with under the Act of 1989. In my opinion such illegality is required to be rectified. (4). Section 20 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 1989 (for short the Act of 1989) excludes the application of such other sister legislations which are in consistent with the subject matter dealt with under the Act of 1989. In fact the Act of 1989 has been given overriding effect over other sister laws in respect to the subject matter dealt with under the Act if the provisions of other laws are in- consistent with the subject matter contained in the Act of 1989. Though Section 20 does not say that the provisions of the Indian Penal Code would not be applicable to the cases of the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, whose cases are to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act of 1989. However, Section 3 of the Act of 1989 enumerates the offences which, if committed, shall be punishable in accordance with the provisions of Act of 1989 notwithstanding the fact that such acts fall within the definition of certain offences under the Indian Penal Code. (5). In the present case it is not disputed that the two ladies against whom the offence of assault and causing simple hurt with blunt weapon was reported to have been committed were the members of Scheduled Caste and the present petitioner was not the member of such caste. Section 3 which provides for punishment for offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, reads as under : "Assaults or uses force to any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty." (6). A bare reading of the above provision contained in the Act of 1989 clearly conveys the message that an act assaulting or using force to any woman belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty shall be punishable U/s. 3-1(xi) of Act of 1989 notwithstanding the fact that such an act may be punishable under any of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Since an offence falling within the scope of Section 3-1 (xi) was allegedly committed by the petitioner, who was not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, against two ladies who were members of the Scheduled Caste, the act done by the petitioner was prima facie punishable U/s. 3-1(xi) of Act of 1989. In fact the very fact that the F.R. was put up for passing necessary orders, before the learned Sessions Judge who is the Special Judge for conducting trials of the offenders against the Act of 1989, clearly suggests that not only the police but also the Judge were acting in accordance with the provisions of Act of 1989. It seems to me that since one of the two offenders did not happen to be a member of Scheduled Caste the learned Judge mentioned that he was taking cognizance of the offence U/s. 341, 323 IPC. That may be correct that against a person, who was not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, the learned Judge could have taken cognizance of the offences U/s. 341, 323 (subject to the law of limitation) but in so far as cognizance of an offence against the present petitioner was concerned the learned Sessions Judge could have taken cognizance only under the Act of 1989. The offence U/s. 3- 1(xi) is punishable with imprisonment for 5 years and therefore, the limitation prescribed U/s. 468(2) is not applicable in the fact and circumstances of the case. It is that invalidity or illegality which I noticed in the impugned order and declined to accept the request of Mr. Jain. (7). In the result this petition is dismissed with the observations made herein above.