Judgment :- This is an appeal against the conviction of the accused under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Atrocities Prevention) of Act 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and imposed fine of Rs.100/- to each accused, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a week. If the fine amount is collected, Rs.200/- will be paid as compensation to P.W.1 Raji. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.8.1992, P.W.2 Palani had gone to Samraj's lands to do his agricultural work. On that day at about 5.00 p.m. P.W.3 Ammasi and one Periasami came to the house of P.W.1 Raji for the purpose of fixing Palani (P.W.2) to do some agricultural work in their lands on the next day. Since P.W.2 Palani was not there, P.W.3 Ammasi and Periasami were chatting with Raji. P.W.1 Raji had collected coconut fibres from the lands of her employer Samraj and she had spread them in front of her house for drying. Accused 1 to 4 came to the house of Raji and questioned her as to where from she had stolen the coconut fibre. When P.W.1 Raji replied that she had picked them from the lands of Samraj, A1 scolded her mentioning the name of the caste. Therefore, a complaint was given under Section 3 (1)(x)of the Act. 3. Learned Sessions Judge took the cognizance of the offence and framed charges and proceeded with trial and found the accused guilty of the offence and imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.100/-to each accused, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a week. 4. In this case, the accused have not been committed by the Magistrate but the Sessions Court has taken cognizance of the offence directly. This Court has held in MANI @ PALANIVEL V. STATE; SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KANGEYAM (2001 (2) LAW WEEKLY (Crl.) 755) that the Sessions Court cannot take cognizance of an offence and it cannot try the case unless it is committed by the Magistrate's Court. Under such circumstances, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Therefore, in this case also, the facts of the case falls under the decisions of the Supreme Court and followed by this Court. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. Hence, the appeal is allowed.