JUDGMENT P.K. TRIPATHY, J. — In this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. petitioner has prayed to quash the order of cognizance dated 20.12.1999 in Special Case No. 14 of 2000 of the Court of Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Balasore, arising out of G.R. Case No. 742 of 2000. Learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 294/506, I.P.C read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short ‘the Act’). This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. was heard along with a batch of cases involving similar legal issues and has been dis¬posed of by separate judgments in each of the cases. It be noted that both the parties consented for disposal of this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. at the stage of admission. 2. One of the legal issues which is involved in the batch of cases is as to whether an investigation made by a Police Officer not appointed for investigation in accordance with Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atroci¬ties) Rules, 1995 (in short ‘the Rules’) read with Section 9 of the Act is valid to take cognizance of the offence under Section 3 of the Act. It has been held by this Court that such an investigation per se is illegal. It has been held that when an investigation is conducted by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or by an officer who is not lawfully appointed under the said provision of law to con¬duct and carry on the investigation, then in the event of submis¬sion of charge-sheet on the basis of such an investigation the cognizance-taking Magistrate shall not take cognizance of the offence under Section 3 of the Act, but if the charge-sheet includes the offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code then he has to consider the matter relating to cognizance of the offences under Penal Code and to proceed with the Criminal Pro¬ceeding in accordance with law. 3. 3. It has also been held that in the event an investiga¬tion has been undertaken by an officer not appointed in accord¬ance with Rule 7 of the Rules but the investigating/prosecuting agency shall move application before the cognizance- taking Magis¬trate for the investigation being undertaken by an officer legal¬ly entitled to conduct such investigation, then such application be duly considered by the cognizance-taking Magistrate in accord¬ance with law. 4. Another legal issue involved in the batch of cases is as to whether the Court of Session functioning as Special Judge is to take cognizance of the offence without an order of commit¬ment. This Court has held that in view of the ratio in the ase of Gangula Ashok and another v. State of A.P. (2000) 18 OCR (SC) 364, the Court of Session functioning as the Special Judge to take up the cases involving the offence under Section 3 of the Act is not required to accept the charge-sheet or to take cogni¬zance without an order of commitment. 5. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, it is appropriate for the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge to send back the case record to the concerned cognizance-taking Magistrate, if the same has not already been done. If in the meantime police papers have already been supplied and charge has been framed, then learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Balasore may seek the option of the accused relating to continu¬ance of the trial in accordance with the ratio in the case of In Re: Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Cuttack v. State of Orissa*, (2002) 22 OCR 92. If the State shall move for investigation by a competent police officer duly appointed under Rule 7 of the Rules, that be considered by the concerned Court in accordance with law. With the said observation and directions the Criminal Misc. case stands disposed of. Crl. Misc. Case disposed of.