N. Pandey and I. P. Singh, JJ. By means of these petitions under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure petitioners have challenged the validity of the orders taking cognizance by the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. In these cases solitary question raised for consideration is whether the Special Courts constituted under section 14 of the Act have power to take cognizance of the offences, defined under the Act. 3. On behalf the petitioners it was pointed out that a Division Bench of this Court while examining identical question in the case of Jhagru Mahto Vs. State of Bihar (1992) (2) PLJR 738) had already held that Special Courts, constituted under the provision of section 14 of the Act are not empowered to take cognizance of the offences as defined under the Act. 4. It appears learned Single Judge having noticed a judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of Director General of Prosecution (1993 Cr. LJ 760) and the ratio laid down in the case of A. R. Antulay Vs. R. S. Nayak ( AIR 1984 SC 718 ) referred the matter to the Division Bench. 5. We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perused the order under reference. It would be relevant to notice that views expressed by the Division Bench in the cases of "Jhagra Manto (supra)" has recently been reiterated by another Division Bench in the case of Haresh Kumar Singh & ors. Vs. Union of India & ors (1997 (1) PLJR 334)", holding that Special Judge being a court of sessions will have no jurisdiction to take cognizance for the offences under the Act. Because no provision has been made under the concerned Act to empower such court to take cognizance. 6. The views taken by the Kerala High Court is based on the law laid down by the Apex court in the case of A. R. Antulay' (supra)'. The case before the Supreme Court was with regard to the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. In that case there was no question whether the Special Court had jurisdiction to take cognizance. Because a bare reference to section 8 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it would appear that the Special Judge may take cognizance of the offences, prescribed under the said Act. In that case there was no question whether the Special Court had jurisdiction to take cognizance. Because a bare reference to section 8 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it would appear that the Special Judge may take cognizance of the offences, prescribed under the said Act. Unfortunately no such provision has been made under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 7. Therefore, having regard to the views expressed by both the Division Benches of this Court either it would be in the case of "Jhagru Mahto (supra)" or in the case of "Haresh Kumar Singh (supra)". We have no option but to hold that Special courts constituted under section 14 of the Act will have no jurisdiction to take cognizance. 8. In the result, impugned orders passed in these cases are set aside with a direction to the respective Judicial Magistrates to proceed into the matter in accordance with law laid down in the case of Jhagru Mahto (supra). 9. As the matters remain pending before this Court, we direct that records of these cases be placed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate forthwith so that he can proceed in accordance with law without any delay. In the result, all these cases are allowed to the extent indicated above.