JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.1.1999 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge (Special Judge) District Sikar in Special Case No. 122/1996 by which the application under section 395, Cr.P.C. was moved, whereby the petitioner's request for leave of the Court for reference to this Court has been declined by the said Court. 2. In order to appreciate the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is appropriate at the outset to refer the contents of the application moved before the learned Trial Court under section 395, Cr.P.C. From the perusal of the said application, it is apparent that the applicant has renounced the world in 1994 and, thereafter, he had himself involved in propagation of religion. It has further been contended by the petitioner that he does not believe in caste, colour and creed and notwithstanding his involvement in religious activities he has been unfortunately implicated under the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for short "the Act of 1989". 3. A complaint was filed against the petitioner before the Trial Court under the provisions of the Act of 1989 by the complainant Kesardev Khatik under Section 3 of the Act of 1989. FIR was also lodged with P.S. Laxmangarh on 16.12.1995 for offence under Sections 341, 323, 504, 379, IPC read with Section 3 of the Act of 1989. The police after investigating the case filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 341 and 323, IPC while the case under Section 3 of the Act of 1989 was not found sustainable by the police. Notwithstanding this, cognizance was taken, thereafter, upon a complaint having been presented by the complainant himself directly to the Court. 4. Be that as it may, the fact remains that once the cognizance has been taken by the Trial Court on the basis of a complaint under section 202, Cr.P.C. on the basis of the evidence led before the Court, the process of law at once commences against the accused and the trial has to proceed to its logical conclusion in accordance with law. 5. It has been stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that no revision has been filed challenging the order dated 8.8.1996 of the Trial Court taking cognizance against the accused so far. 6. 5. It has been stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that no revision has been filed challenging the order dated 8.8.1996 of the Trial Court taking cognizance against the accused so far. 6. Be that as it may, prima-facie, I am of the view that in order to invoke the provisions of section 395, Cr.P.C., the Court has primarily to be satisfied that a case pending before it involves a question as to the validity of any Act. Section 395(1), Cr.P.C. stipulates as under : "CHAPTER XXX REFERENCE AND REVISION Reference to High Court. 395. (1) Where any Court is satisfied that a case pending before it involves a question as to the validity of any Act, Ordinance or Regulation or of any provision contained in an Act, Ordinance or Regulation, the determination of which is necessary for the disposal of the case, and is of opinion that such Act, Ordinance, Regulation or provision is invalid or inoperative, but has not been so declared by the High Court to which that Court is subordinate or by the Supreme Court, the Court shall state a case setting out its opinion and the reasons therefor, and refer the same for the decision of the High Court." 7. I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 6.1.1999 passed by the learned Trial Court by which the petitioner's request for making Reference to this Court as per the provisions of Section 395(1), Cr.P.C. was declined. 8. This revision petition being devoid of any merit is accordingly rejected.Revision Petition dismissed. *******