JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - Petitioner is one of the accused persons in G.R. Case No. 15 of 1995 of the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Nuapada. He challenges the order of taking cognizance by the Special Judge and framing of charge and taking of the case for trial without an order of commitment. Petitioner also challenges illegality in investigation, that having been made by a police officer not appointed in accordance with Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (in short, 'the Rules"). Because of the aforesaid contention, this case was heard along with a batch of cases involving similar legal issues, but separate judgments have been delivered in each of such cases. It be noted that both the parties consented for disposal of the proceeding at the stage of admission. 2. Before taking into consideration the above noted legal issued, facts which are relevant for the purpose is noted as hereunder. On the basis of the F.I.R. of the informant, Komna P.S. Case No. 4 of 1995 was registered in the month of January, 1995, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 15 of 1995 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Nuapada. F.I.R. was registered for the offences under Sections 147/341/323/294/366/506/149, Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, 'the Act'). On 14.3.1995 learned S.D.J.M., Nuapada received the charge-sheet submitted by the Officer-in-Charge, Komna Police Station. On jurisdiction ground, as per the directions of the Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge, learned S.D.J.M. passed order on 14.3.1995 to make over the case to the Court of Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge at Bhawanipatana. However, due to non-appearance of the accused persons personally, the case lingered in the Court of S.D.J.M. till 13.11.1995. On 14.12.1995 learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge received the case record and on 4.1.1996 cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 147/323/294/506/341/149, Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act was again taken. Thereafter, again the case lingered for a pretty long time for supply of police-papers and personal appearance of the accused persons to consider the question of charge. Ultimately, learned Sessions Judge took up the case on 4.1.1996 in his Sessions Circuit at Nuapada, and after hearing the parties, framed charge for the aforesaid offences and the accused persons claimed for trial. Ultimately, learned Sessions Judge took up the case on 4.1.1996 in his Sessions Circuit at Nuapada, and after hearing the parties, framed charge for the aforesaid offences and the accused persons claimed for trial. On two subsequent dates trial of the case could not be taken up because of non-issuance of summons to the witnesses and for cancellation of Sessions Circuit respectively on 10.1.2000 and 6.3.2000. In the meantime the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge being established at Nuapada and the Court having been designated as a Special Judge to try the cases under the Act, therefore, on 24.3.2000 learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge at Bhawanipatna transferred the case to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Nuapada. On 27.3.2000, learned Addl. Sessions Judge received the record and took up the case on the assigned date, i.e., on 24.4.2000. On the later date witnesses were not present and at the same time one of the accused persons namely Ashmat Rout being absent, non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against him fixing the case to 29.6.2000. In the meantime, on 6.6.2000 this application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by accused Manoj Kumar Mishra on the ground of involvement of legal issues, as noted at the outset of this judgment. 3. So far as the contention relating to investigation having not been conducted by a Deputy Superintendent of Police in accordance with provision in Rule 7 of the Rules, according to the Petitioner, the charge-sheet is liable to be quashed. The aforesaid contention of the Petitioner has no leg to stand in view of the fact that the aforesaid Rule came into force with effect from 31.3.1995, having been published in the Gazette of India of that date, and admittedly the investigation was completed by 8th March, 1995. Under such circumstance, Rule 7 of the Rules cannot be enforced in this particular case. Section 9 of the Act also does not invalidate investigation made by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police inasmuch as, according to the provision in that Section the discretion was left with the State Government to notify and authorise any officer or a class of officers, the power of investigation into a particular case or a group of cases or class of cases, and nothing is placed on record that the State Govt. had notified any class of officers to investigate into cases under the Act or had excluded the local police from conducting such investigation. Thus, the investigation made and charge-sheet submitted by the Officer-in-Charge of Komna Police Station prior to coming into force of the Rules cannot be regarded as invalid or illegal. 4. So far as the other contentions of the Petitioner that the Special Judge had no power to take cognizance of the offence without an order of commitment, it finds support from the ratio in the case of Gangula Ashok and Anr. v. State of A.P., (2000) 18 OCR (SC) 364. After analysing the provision of procedural law, the Apex Court has been pleased to propound that: 16. Hence we have no doubt that a Special Court under this Act is essentially a Court of Session and it can take cognizance of the offence when the case is committed to it by the Magistrate in accordance with the provisions of the Code. In other words, a complaint or a charge-sheet cannot straightway be laid before the Special Court under the Act. 5. In the case of In Re: Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Cuttack v. State of Orissa, (2002) 22 OCR 92, while dealing with a similar legal issue, this Court, referring to Clause (2) of Section 460, Code of Criminal Procedure, has taken note that taking cognizance of an offence under Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 190, is an irregularity which does not vitiate the proceeding. Therefore, this Court observed that: According to the decision of the apex Court in Gangula Ashok's case (supra), the learned Special Judge has power to take cognizance as a Special Judge if the same could have been committed to him at a latter stage. But at the same time it cannot be said that he is incompetent to take cognizance. In my opinion, it is to be seen if the trial, which has progressed and been conducted by the competent Court by following the procedure laid down by the Code of Criminal Procedure, is declared null and void, whether the same would lead to vitiate the trial or whether the same is curable. The same is curable if neither side is prejudiced. The same is curable if neither side is prejudiced. It will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, so, at this stage, it can only be observed that it is the Special Court which can decide whether the case is to be sent back to the Court of the S.D.J.M. for taking cognizance and this can only be done by the Special Court after hearing both the sides and recording its satisfaction to the effect that both the sides will not be prejudiced.... In that context, in the said decision this Court also placed reliance in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bhooraji and Others in which the Apex Court propounded that: 8. The real question is whether the High Court necessarily should have quashed the trial proceedings to be repeated again only on account of the declaration of the legal position made by Supreme Court concerning the procedural aspect about the cases involving offences under the SC/ST Act. A de-novo trial should be the last resort and that too only when such course becomes so desperately indispensable. It should be limited to the extreme exigency to avert 'a failure of justice'. Any omission or even the illegality in the procedure which does not affect the core of the case is not a ground for ordering a de novo trial. This is because the appellate Court has plenary powers for re-evaluating or re-appraising the evidence and even to take additional evidence by the Appellate Court itself or to direct such additional evidence to be collected by the trial Court. But to replay the whole laborious exercise after erasing the bulky records relating to the earlier proceedings, by bringing down all the persons to the court once again for repeating the whole depositions would be a sheer waste of time, energy and costs unless there is miscarriage of Justice otherwise. Hence, the said course can be resorted to when it becomes unpreventable for the purpose of averting 'a failure of justice'. The Superior Court while orders a de novo trial cannot afford to overlook the realities and the serious impact on the pending cases in trial Courts which are crammed with dockets, and how much that order would inflict hardship on many innocent persons who once took all the troubles to reach the Court and deposed their versions in the very same case. To them and the public the re-enactment of the whole labour might give the impression that law is more pedantic than pragmatic. Law is not an instrument to be used for inflicting sufferings on the people but for the process of justice dispensation. 6. While adopting the aforesaid ratio and the legal position, both from the Apex Court and this Court, it is seen that at no stage of the proceeding the Petitioner or any of the accused persons challenged jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge relating to taking of cognizance and framing of charge. The procedure which was to be adopted by the S.D.J.M. for passing an order of commitment, has been substantially followed in this case inasmuch as the documents, upon which the prosecution relies, were supplied to the accused persons in the Court of S.D.J.M. when they were directed to appear before the Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Bhawanipatna because of transfer of the G.R. Case by the S.D.J.M., Nuapada to the file of Sessions Judge at Bhawanipatna. Be that as it may, learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Nuapada should consider this aspect after hearing the accused persons inasmuch as only one accused is before this Court. If the accused persons will opt for a formal order of commitment from the Court of S.D.J.M., then learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Nuapada shall consider the same most expeditiously within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and in the event he shall pass order for regularising the matter by making a formal order of commitment, then learned S.D.J.M. shall be directed to do the needful within a week therefrom. Since the accused persons have already received the police-papers at the time of commitment, they shall not be entitled to fresh or further copies of the police-papers. 7. If accused Ashmat Rout, against whom N.B.W.A. has been issued, has not yet surrendered, then the Superintendent of Police, Nuapada be issued with a direction as per this order to execute the warrant expeditiously within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such order. In the event of non-compliance, the Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Nuapada shall do well to report the matter to this Court for appropriate action against the Superintendent of Police for non-complaining with the above direction. Thus, it will be appropriate for learned Addl. In the event of non-compliance, the Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Nuapada shall do well to report the matter to this Court for appropriate action against the Superintendent of Police for non-complaining with the above direction. Thus, it will be appropriate for learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nuapada to send a D.O. letter to the Superintendent of Police, Nuapada along with an extract of this order. In any event, learned Addl. Sessions Judge shall proceed with the case expeditiously and shall scrupulously avoid delay which has occasioned in this case, as it is seen from the certified copy of the order-sheets, due to tactices adopted by the accused persons because of liberal attitude and causal approach to the case by the trial Court. 8. In the result, the Criminal Misc. Case is dismissed with a direction for disposal of the Criminal proceeding in accordance with the directions and observations made above. Crl. Misc. Case dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed