ORDER This revision is against the order of dismissal of the application filed by the petitioners for discharge. The petitioners were charge-sheeted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, J.C. Nagar Sub-Division, Bangalore for the offence punishable under Section 3(1), clause (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. On two grounds they sought for discharge. Firstly, it was urged that the prosecuting agency cannot directly submit charge-sheet to the Special Court as a Special Court being the Sessions Court cannot try a case without there being an order of committal. Secondly, it is submitted that as per Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, any alleged offence has to be investigated by the officer not below the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police, rank who is specially authorised by the State Government. 3. The Special Judge after having heard the matter regarding discharge referred to the decision relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioners in Gangula Ashok and Another v State of Andhra Pradesh1 and also Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules and held that in the light of the amendment of Section 14 of the Act taking cognizance of the offence in the Court of original jurisdiction and trying the offence is perfectly legal. Meeting the argument that the matter was not investigated into by appropriate I.O. the Court held that the A.C.P. being an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police is the appropriate investigating authority under the Act. Having thus held against the petitioners on both the points, the Court below dismissed the application. Accordingly, the application has been dismissed. 4. Heard the learned Counsels for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the ruling of the Apex Court in Gangula Ashok's case, the case cannot be directly tried by the Sessions Judge by entertaining charge-sheet without there being an order of committal by the Magistrate and the decisions in Gangula Ashok's case; Manoj Kumar Giri u State of Jharkhand and Another1 and also the decision of this Court in Cri. R.P. No. 12 of 2003, dated 19-9-2003 are relied upon to contend that there cannot be any scope for taking cognizance and trying the case without there being an order of committal by the Magistrate. The same is resisted by the learned High Court Government Pleader. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the Trial Court has not committed any illegality in dismissing the application filed. 6. At the outset, the learned High Court Government Pleader draws attention to the Karnataka Act No. 35 of 2003 whereby the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2002 has been amended and the amendment received the assent of the President of India on the Thirteenth day of August, 2003. The relevant provision reads: "2. Amendment of Section 14.-In Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Central Act 33 of 1989), for the words "to try offences under this Act", the words "to take cognizance of offences under this Act as a Court of original jurisdiction and to try such offences" shall be substituted". 7. The judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Gangula Ashok's case, is based on the original Act as it stood before amendment. The provision having been amended subsequently, wherein the need for committal by the Magistrate has been done away with. By the said amendment the Special Court was empowered to take the cognizance and try such offences as a Court of original jurisdiction. 8. In that view of the matter, the judgment of the Apex Court is not applicable as rightly noted by the Trial Court. Further, by the circular issued by the DG and IGP, Karnataka State as per Rule 7 dated 8-1-1998 states that all Deputy Superintendents of Police in the State are appointed as Investigating Officers within their respective jurisdiction. 9. In the instant case, the Assistant Commissioner of Police is a person of Dy. S.P., cadre, who has investigated the matter and is authorised invariably by general notification issued under Section 17 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Therefore it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed. 10. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.