JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - In this application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure Petitioner has prayed to quash the investigation in P.S. Case No. 26 of 2000 of Krushna Prasad Police-Station. 2. This case was heard along with a batch of cases involving the offence u/s 3 of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in snort 'the Act') and Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (in short, 'the Rules'). But keeping in view distinguishable facts separate judgments are delivered in each of the cases. It be noted that on consent of both the parties this application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure was heard for disposal at the stage of admission. 3. One of the legal issues which is involved in the batch of cases is whether an investigation made by a Police Officer not appointed in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules read with Section 9 of the Act is valid and sustainable. In the case of In Re: Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge Cuttack v. State of Orissa (2002) 22 OCR 92, this Court has held that such an investigation is illegal it not made in conformity with the provision in Section 9 of the Act read with Rule 7 of the Rules. This Court has followed that ratio in the batch of the cases and has further 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 conduct and carry out the investigation, then in the event of submission of charge-sheet on the basis of such an investigation the cognizance taking Magistrate shall not take cognizance of the offence u/s 3 of the Act but if the charge-sheet includes offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code then he shall proceed with Criminal Proceeding in accordance with law with respect to the offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code it has also been held that in the event an investigation has Deer, undertaker by an officer not appointed in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules out the investigating. prosecuting agency shall apply before the cognizance taking Magistrate for investigation being undertaken by an officer legally entitled to conduct such investigation then such application be duly considered by the cognizance talking Magistrate in accordance with law. 4. This Court has also held that in view of the ratio in the case of Gangula Ashok and Anr. v. Stale of A.P. (2000) 18 OCR (SC) 364, the Court of Sessions functioning as the Special Judge shall not accept the charge-sheet or take cognizance of offence without an order of commitment from the Court of cognizance talking Magistrate 5. In the present case the Petitioner has been bcoked for the offence under Sections 341/354, I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Act as per Krushna Prashad P.S. Case No. 26 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 313 of 2CGC of the Court of S.D.J.M. Puri. In the event the investigation has been completed by a Police Officer other than Police Officer who is entitled to conduct such investigation in accordance with Rule 7, then cognizance of the offence u/s 3 of the Act shall not be taken on the basis of such charge-sheet unless the investigating/prosecuting agency shall seen for other remedy as noted a above. With the said observation this Criminal Misc. case is disposed of and the Courts below shall take further action in the case in accordance with the aforesaid direction and observation.