C. V. RAMULU, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a case referred to this Court by the learned District and sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar, under section 395 (2) of Cr. P. C seeking necessary instructions and clarification as to whether sessions Case Nos. 37 and 53 of 2001 sent by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum- special Judge for Trial of Cases under scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, mahabubnagar, for registering them as regular Sessions Cases, as no offence was made out under Scheduled Castes/scheduled tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short "the Act"), can be registered by the regular Sessions Court or not. ( 2 ) THE above two Cases were committed by the Court of Judicial magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar, directly to the Court of Special Judge for trial of Cases under the Act, Mahabubnagar, and they were registered as Sessions Cases by the Court. Since it was found that the offence under Section 3 (lxxi) of the act was not made out, the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the Act sent the cases to the District and Sessions Court, for registering them as regular Sessions cases. ( 3 ) IN this revision, Sri C. V. Nagarjuna reddy, appearing for the High Court, placed reliance on the judgment reported in State of himachal Pradesh v. Gita Ram, 2000 (7) scc 452 , wherein the Supreme Court held that even after specification of a Sessions court as a Special Court under the Act, the special Court would continue to be the sessions Court and the trial before that Court can be held only in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The supreme Court while dealing with the above matter relied upon its earlier decision in gangula Ashok v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2000 (1) ALD (Crl.) 519 (SC) = 2000 (2) scc 504 , wherein it was held as under:"it is clear from Sections 14 and 2 (lxd) of the Act that it is for trial of the offences under the Act that a particular Court of sessions in each district is sought to be specified as a Special Court. Though the word "trial" is not defined either in the Code or in die Act it is clearly distinguishable from inquiry. Inquiry must always be a forerunner to the trial. Though the word "trial" is not defined either in the Code or in die Act it is clearly distinguishable from inquiry. Inquiry must always be a forerunner to the trial. Thus the Court of session is specified to conduct a trial and no other Court can conduct the trial of offences under the Act. Evidently the Legislature wanted the Special Court to be a Court of sessions. Hence, the particular Court of session, even after being specified as a special Court, would continue to be essentially a Court of Session and designation of it as a Special Court would not denude it of its character or even powers as a Court of session. The trial in such a Court can be conducted only in the manner provided in chapter XVIII of the Code which contains a fasciculus of provisions for "trial before a court of Session. " ( 4 ) IN view of the above legal position, it is clear that the Additional Sessions court even after being specified as a Special court for trial of cases specified under the Act, would continue to be essentially a Court of Sessions, and designation of it as a Special Court would not denude it of its character or even powers as a Court of session. Hence, the District and Sessions judge, Mahabubnagar, is directed to send the matters back to the Additional Sessions judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of cases under the Act, Mahabubnagar, even though the offences under the Act are not made out, as the Additional Sessions judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of cases under the Act though specified as special Court, has the power to deal with the cases for the offences arising under the Indian Penal Code. There is no necessity of re-registering the case by the regular sessions Court. However, if an offence is triable by a Magistrate, the Special Court shall follow the procedure as laid down under Section 228 of Cr. PC. ( 5 ) THE reference is accordingly answered.