JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - Petitioners are the accused persons in G.R. Case No. 133 of 1998 of the Court of Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Cuttack. In this application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure they have prayed to quash the investigation and also to quash the order of cognizance taken by learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge dated 2.8.1999. The said G.R. Case involves the offences punishable under Sections 342, 323, 354, 294, 330, 506/34 Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, 'the Act'). This application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure was heard along with a batch of cases involving the similar legal issues and have been disposed of by separate judgments in each of the cases. It be noted that both the parties consented for disposal of this application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure at the stage of admission. 2. One of the legal issues which is involved in the batch of cases is 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 Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (In short 'the Rules') read with Section 9 of the Act is valid and sustainable. It has been held by this Court that such an investigation per se is illegal. However, it has further 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 conduct and carry out the investigation, then in the event of submission of charge-sheet on the basis of such an investigation by a Police Officer not competent under law, the cognizance taking Magistrate shall not take cognizance of the offence u/s 3 of the Act, but if the charge-sheet includes the offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code then he is to proceed with the Criminal Proceeding in accordance with law with respect to the offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code. 3. 3. It has also been held that in the event investigation has been undertaken by an officer not appointed in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules but the investigating/prosecuting agency shall apply before the cognizance taking Magistrate for investigation by an officer legally entitled and competent to conduct such investigation, then such application of the investigating/prosecuting agency shall be duly considered by the cognizance taking Magistrate but in accordance with law. 4. Another legal issue involved in the batch of the cases is as to whether the Special Judge is competent to take cognizance of the offence and proceed with the trial without an order of commitment. This Court has held that in view of the ratio in the case of Gangula Ashok and Anr. v. State of A.P. (2000) 18 OCR (SC) 364, the Court of Session functioning as Special Judge is not required to accept the charge-sheet or to take cognizance without an order of commitment. 5. In the present case admittedly the investigation has been conducted by a Police Officer not duly appointed in accordance with the provision in Rule 7 of the Rules. Therefore, unless the investigating/prosecuting agency makes a motion for investigation into the offence by a competent Police Officer duly appointed under Rule 7, no action can be taken against the accused persons for the offence u/s 3 of the Act and to that extent the investigation and the charge sheet for the offence u/s 3 of the Act stands quashed. However, this order shall not interfere with any order passed by learned Magistrate relating to offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code or any order that may be passed relating investigation by a competent police officer. In any case, the order of cognizance taken by learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge vide the impugned order dated 2.8.1999 is legally not sustainable in view of the ratio in the case of Gangula Ashok (supra). 6. With the said observations and directions, this Criminal Misc. Case stands disposed of. Ordered accordingly.