( 1 ) POINT: whether a Court of Session can take cognizance of any offence without committal by a Magistate?[1]. It is needless to say that the merits or demerits of the truth or otherwise of the case of the prosecution need not be gone in detail once if the above question is answered in favour of the appellant. [2]. Further in case if this Court comes to the conclusion that the Court of Session cannot take cognizance of offence without the case being committed by the competent court. What is the next step to be followed? acquittal or remittal: Whether the accused is to be acquitted or the case is to be remitted for fresh trial. [3]. This crucial question is to be answered at the threshold to uphold the rule of procedural law. ( 2 ) SRI C. Praveen Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant highlighted with professional excellence with the relevant provisions in the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code ) and the special law under scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) and ventilated the grievance of the accused by stating that the procedure adopted by the trial court in taking cognizance of the offence directly on a charge sheet filed by the investigating agency without being committal of the case is bad in law and the conviction is to be set aside. ( 3 ) THE facts to the extent necessary as disclosed by perusal of original record are as under:[1]. The Inspector of Police, Yellandu of khammam District, filed charge sheet in crime No. 148 of 1996 against the sole accused under Section 3 (2) (v) of the Act read with Section 376 IPC alleging that the accused Sreeshailam has committed sexual assault on P. W. 1, who is a married woman belonging to Lambada caste of Scheduled tribe community. As per the allegation levelled against the accused, he is liable to face trial before the Special Court especially constituted to try the offences under the Act. [2]. The charges sheet is field on 8-10-1996 by the investigating agency in the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at yellandu. The said charge sheet is returned with a an endorsement vide Dis. No. 2608 dt. [2]. The charges sheet is field on 8-10-1996 by the investigating agency in the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at yellandu. The said charge sheet is returned with a an endorsement vide Dis. No. 2608 dt. 5-11-1996 of the Judicial First Class magistrate that it should be field before the designated court. [3]. Accordingly the charge-sheet is resubmitted and in the Special Judge has accepted the same. The endorsement of the special Judge for S. Cs. and S. Ts Cases at khammam, dated 25-7-1997 is as follows: "taken on file as S. C. 39/97 U/s. 376 ipc R/w 3 (i) (xii) of S. C. and S. T. (PA) act, 1989 against the accused. Call on 10-9-1997". [4]. Thus the court record is clearly establishing that the charge sheet was originally field before the Judicial First Class magistrate at Yellandu and the said court has returned the same with direction to file it before the designated court and the designated court a Sessions Court, has, received the charge sheet and taken on file. ( 4 ) LAW: committal:[1]. Chapter XIV of the Code deals with the conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings. [2]. Sections 193 of the Code falling under the above Chapter reads as follows: "sections 193: Cognizance of offences by Courts of Sessions: - expect as otherwise expressly provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in before, no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a magistrate under this Code"[3]. Section 193 of the Code commences with a specific bar for taking cognizance of offence by the Court of Session and it regulates competence of the Sessions Court in this regard and bar its jurisdiction except in certain cases. The section clearly says except as otherwise expressly provided no Sessions court can taken cognizance of any offence without any commitment by the Magistrate. [4]. If the offence is exclusively triable by a Court of Session, the Magistrate shall commit the accused to the Court of Session. Thus the trial of Sessions without commitment is ultra virus and without commitment the sessions Judge cannot take cognizance of the offence as well as the offender. This is the undisputed and unquestionable general law of the land as per the procedural Code. [5]. Thus the trial of Sessions without commitment is ultra virus and without commitment the sessions Judge cannot take cognizance of the offence as well as the offender. This is the undisputed and unquestionable general law of the land as per the procedural Code. [5]. Commitment of case to Court of session when an offence is exclusively triable by Court of Session. [6]. Chapter XVI of the Code deals with commencement of proceedings before the magistrate. Section 209 of the Code reads as under: "commitment of case to Court of session when offence is triable exclusively by it: - When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate and it appears to the magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall- [ (a) commit, after complying with the provisions of Section 207 or Sec. 208, as the case may be, the case to the court of Session, and subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody until such commitment has been made]:[7]. Thus a plain reading of the above section clarifies that whenever a charge sheet is filed before the Magistrate and when it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall commit the case to the Court of session. [8]. Offence Triable by Court of session: first Schedule of the Code says that the offence under Section 376/1 PC is exclusively triabel by a Court of Session. ( 5 ) SPECIAL Act:[1]. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 is known as Act 33 of 1989. [2]. Section 14 specified the jurisdiction of Special Court. Special Court is essentially a Court of Session. [3]. The perusal of the provisions of Act 33 of 1989 clearly confirms that there is no express provision under the Special Act empowering the Special Court to take cognizance of the offence directly under the act without committal. [4]. [2]. Section 14 specified the jurisdiction of Special Court. Special Court is essentially a Court of Session. [3]. The perusal of the provisions of Act 33 of 1989 clearly confirms that there is no express provision under the Special Act empowering the Special Court to take cognizance of the offence directly under the act without committal. [4]. In the absence of any express provision under the Act empowering the special Court constituted therein to take cognizance of the offence under the Act and if the Cognizance is taken by the Special court it would be legal as Sessions Court can take cognizance of the offence on case being committed to it by the Magistrate under section 193 of the Code. ( 6 ) IN this case both the Judicial First class Magistrate at Yellandu as well as the special Judge functioning under the Special act has ignored all the mandatory provisions under the Code. ( 7 ) CASE Law: the Apex Court has an occasion to deal with this situation and laid the law of the land in the following decisions. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhorraji and others vidyadharan v. State of Kerala moly v. State of Kerala [1]. The latest being Molv v. State of kerala (supra 3 ). The facts and circumstances in the above case are almost identical of the facts before me. In this case the appellants faced trial for the alleged commission of offence punishable under the Special Act and the trial court found the appellants guilty and imposed the sentence. Appeal before the High Court did not yield any results infavourof the appellants forcing him to tap the doors of the Apex court. Their Lordship of the Supreme Court discussed the pristine question whether the special Judge could take cognizance of the offence straightway without the case being committed to him and whether Section 193 of the Code would stand in the way. In para 9, their Lordships held that the special Court constituted under the Special act is Court of Session and it is specified in section 14 of the Act. In para 9, their Lordships held that the special Court constituted under the Special act is Court of Session and it is specified in section 14 of the Act. At para 12, their Lordship have clearly held as follows: "neither in the Code nor in the Act is there any provision whatsoever, not even by implication, that the specified court of Session (Special Court) can take cognizance of the offence under the Act as a Court of original jurisdiction without the case being committed to it by a Magistrate. If that be so, there is no reason to think that the charge sheet or a complaint can straight away be field before such Special Court for offences under the Act. It can be discerned from the hierarchical settings of Criminal court that the Court of Session is given a superior and special status. Hence we thinkthatthe Legislature would have thoughtfully relieved the Court of session from the work of performing all the preliminary formalities which magistrate have to do until the case is committed to the Court of Session. " their Lordships further held that when there is no provision in other, law contrary to the provisions of the Code, Section 193 would apply to the matters covered thereby. In para 16, their Lordship are pleased to observe: "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 straight away be laid down before the Special Court under the Act". Their Lordship have referred the earlier judgments of the Apex Court reiterated in gangula Ashok and another v. State of a. P. , and in vidyadharan v. State of Kerala and in the above two cases the same view has been expressed by the Hon ble Supreme court. ( 8 ) WITH respect and with total diligence all the Criminal Courts in this country have to follow the decisions of the Honourable supreme Court of India. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, I hold that the Special court in the case at hand has undisputedly acted as one of the original jurisdiction and the requirement of Section 193 of the Code were not met. [1]. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, I hold that the Special court in the case at hand has undisputedly acted as one of the original jurisdiction and the requirement of Section 193 of the Code were not met. [1]. Thus taking cognizance of the offence without commitment is not permissible under the Code. ( 10 ) IN para 17 of the judgment referred to above, the Supreme Court has held:"though the plea relating to lack of jurisdiction was not raised before the lower Courts, in view of the undisputed position on facts and inasmuch as a pure question of law without any factual controversy is involved. We see interference on the fact of the case as called for. "[1]. In the above circumstances the forceful arguments of the learned Additional public Prosecutor in this case have no merit. It is contended by the learned Additional public Prosecutor that the appellant did not raise this plea during trial. Hence there is no prejudice caused to the appellant. The Apex court has rejected the said plea in the paragraphs mentioned above. ( 11 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no convincing evidenced to connect the crime with the accused and he is entitled for acquittal. [1]. The Apex court has also clarified this aspect in para 18 in the following words: "one more plea which was pressed by learned counsel for the appellants is that continuance of the proceedings before the appropriate Court in the manner prescribed in law would serve no useful purpose in view of the long passage of time. We do not find any substance in this plea. "[2]. Since the primary objection is taken with regard to lack of jurisdiction of the Special judge, it is improper for this Court to go into the evidentiary value of the witnesses and its appreciation. [3]. It is for the concerned trial court to verify all such pleas after recording the evidence on commitment of the case. [4]. The inevitable conclusion of this court is that the learned Special Judge could not have taken cognizance of the case of the undisputed factual position established this fact. [5]. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant is to be set aside. [6]. [4]. The inevitable conclusion of this court is that the learned Special Judge could not have taken cognizance of the case of the undisputed factual position established this fact. [5]. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant is to be set aside. [6]. The discussion on the merit or demerit of the evidence will have some effect on the trial of the case and since the case has to be sent back to the original court as held by the Honourable Supreme Court of India and the Special Court under the Act is essentially the Court of Session and as it cannot take cognizance of the offence without the case being committed by the competent court, the special Court has to strictly follow the provisions of the Code and if the case is committed, the Special Court can proceed with the trial. ( 12 ) DECISION: with the aforesaid observation and direction, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside.