Judgment : The Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai has made this reference under Sec.395(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The Inspector of Police, Protection of Civil Rights Unit, Madurai Rural District, filed a chargesheet against one Sethutbattu alias Mayandi Thevar for offence under Sec.3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which was taken on file in C.C. No.232 of 1992, by the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai. 3. At the time of examination of defence witnesses, the accused filed a Division Bench decision of the Patna High Court reported in Jhagru Mahto v. State of Bihar Jhagru Mahto v. State of Bihar , (1993)1 Crimes. 643 wherein the Patna High Court held that as per the provisions of Sec.193 of Crl.P.C. the Sessions Court, cannot take cognisance of the offence directly as a court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate as per the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code. As the learned Judge has taken cognisance of the offence directly, the reference has been made by him. 4. Sec.14 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act reads 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.” 5. In the instant case, the Government of Tamil Nadu nave passed G.O. Ms.No.219, Home (Courts B) Department, dated 29.1.1990, wherein the Principal Sessions Court, Madurai, is notified as Special Court to try offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Sec.20 of the said Act reads as follows: “Act to override other laws:Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of this Act shall have affect 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.” Sec.20 of the Act is very clear that the provisions of the said Act has the power of overriding the other laws. 6. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the learned Sessions Judge has sufficient power to take cognisance of the offence directly and in support of his connection, he has submitted a decision of the Kerala High Court in Hareendran v. Sarada Hareendran v. Sarada , (1995)4 Crimes 399 (F.B.). The Full Bench of the Kerala High Court held as follows: “/Merely on account of the definition of inquiry under Sec.2(g) of the Crl.P.C, it is not possible to come to a conclusion straightaway that in the case coming under the Act also inquiry has to be (1998) 1 MLJ (Crl) 5 at 6 done by a Magistrate and only on committal of the case to the Special Court that Court gets jurisdiction to try the offences//As the Sessions Court is specified as Special Court, it can take cognisance of the offences and as there is nothing indicative in the Act to hold that the Special Court gets jurisdiction to try the case only on committal by the Magistrate, It is not possible to hold that the court can take cognisance of an offence for trial only on proper committal by the Magistrate. As Sec.14 of the Act specifically provides for speedy trial and as the Act itself has been enacted to prevent commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by providing Special Courts for Trial of such offences and as the Act nowhere hints committal proceedings, Sec.193 of the Crl.P.C. cannot have any application.” 7. Similar view was taken by the Kerala High Court in Director General of Prosecution In Re. Director General of Prosecution In Re. , 1993 Crl.L.J. 760. It was held as follows: “/.Since the effect of Sec.14 of the Act being to constitute Special Court as a Criminal Court of Original jurisdiction, in the matter of taking cognizance, Sec.193 of the Code cannot apply, only Sec.190 of the Code was have application.” 8. As decided by the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court stated supra, the provisions of Sec.193 of Crl.P.C. need not be followed as the Special Court has got ample power to directly take cognisance of any offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 9. As decided by the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court stated supra, the provisions of Sec.193 of Crl.P.C. need not be followed as the Special Court has got ample power to directly take cognisance of any offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 9. As the decision of the Kerala High Court will satisfy the reference, it is answered that the Principal Sessions Court, Madurai, which is a Special Court, has jurisdiction to take cognisance directly of the offences under the said Act. This petition is ordered accordingly.