Dharam Veer, J. - This appeal, pre­ferred by the appellant under section 374(2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as CrPC), is di­rected against the judgment and order dated 6.5.1997 passed by II Additional Ses­sions Judge/Dehradun in Special Sessions Trial No. 12 of 1994/ State v. Dileep and an-atlier, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted under section 452/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC) and in place of sentence, the accused appellants were directed to be released on probation for a period of two years on fur­nishing a personal bond or Rs. 5000/- and two sureties of similar amount by each of the accused appellants before the Probation Officer and it was further directed that if the accused appellants would fail to keep the good conduct, they shall be sentenced by the Court. 2. During the pendency of this ap­peal, Sri Arvind Vashistha, learned Coun­sel for the appellant No. 2 Ram Gopal @ Gopal filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Ap­plication No. 810/2006 stating therein that the appellant No. 2 had completed his pro­bation of sentence and, therefore, he prayed that he did not want to press the appeal in respect of appellant No. 2 Ram Gopal @ Gopal. Accordingly, this Court vide order dated 23.5.2006 dismissed the appeal of appellant No. 2 Ram Gopal @ Gopal. However, Sri L.K. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellant No. 1 Dileep stated that he would argue the appeal in respect of appellant No. 1 on merit. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record. 4. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 29.3.1994 at 9.50 p.m., PW3 Chaman lal lodged a report with PS Doiwala, De-hradun with the averments that Ram Gopal @ Gopal was having a roving eye.on the girls of his village Madhowala and, there­fore, he used to wander behind the girls of his village. The complainant prohibited him from doing so. On 29.3.1994 at about 7.45 pm, when the complainant was at his house, Ram Gopal @ Gopal along with ac­cused appellant No. 1 Dileep and two other people, intruded in his house and threat­ened him that they would teach him a les­son today. On this, the complainant raised the alarm and then Mulatan Singh (PW2), Ram Prasad and many other villagers came at the house of the complainant. On this, the complainant raised the alarm and then Mulatan Singh (PW2), Ram Prasad and many other villagers came at the house of the complainant. Then they committed marpit with the villagers with the lathis. When they realized that they would be encircled, they ran away from the place of occurrence. When they were being chased by the villagers, they shot a fire in the air and sneaked into the forest. Multan Singh (PW2) and Guiab Singh (PW1) re­ceived injuries in the said incident. They also threatened the complainant for his life while leaving the place of occurrence. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid re­port Ex. Ka-1, Head Constable Satya Narayan prepared the chick FIR Ex. Ka-7. Investigation of this case was entrusted to SI Pramod Kumar Singh (PW6). The in­jured Multan Singh and Gulab Singh were medically examined on 30.3.1994 at 12 a.m. and 12.30 a.m. respectively by Dr. JP Joshi (PW5), who prepared the medical reports 'Ex. Ka-3 and Ka-4 respectively. They were also X-rayed by PW4 Suresh Mehta, Sr. Radiologist, who also prepared the X-ray report Ex. Ka-2. During the course of in­vestigation, the I.O. inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan Ex. Ka-5. During the course of investigation, the I.O. recorded the statements of the wit­nesses and after completing the investiga­tion, he filed the charge-sheet lix. Ka-6 against the accused appellants under sec­tion 452/325 IPC and section 3(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the Act). 6. Thereafter on 25.7.1994, Special Judge/II Additional Sessions Judge, De-hradun framed the charges against the ac­cused appellants under section 452 read with section 34 IPC, section 323 read with section 34 IPC, section 325 read with sec­tion 34 IPC and section 3(i)(x) of the Act. The charges were read over and explained to each of the accused appellants, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 Gulab Singh, the in­jured witness; PW2 Multan Singh, another injured witness; PW 3 Chaman lal, the complainant; PW4 Suresh Mehta, Sr. Radi­ologist who conducted the X-ray on the injured witnesses and prepared the X-ray report Ex. Ka-2; PW5 JP Joshi, who medi­cally examined the injured witnesses and prepared the medical report Ex. Ka-3 & Ka-4 and PW6 SI Pramod Kumar Singh, the I.O. of the case. 8. Radi­ologist who conducted the X-ray on the injured witnesses and prepared the X-ray report Ex. Ka-2; PW5 JP Joshi, who medi­cally examined the injured witnesses and prepared the medical report Ex. Ka-3 & Ka-4 and PW6 SI Pramod Kumar Singh, the I.O. of the case. 8. Thereafter, the statements of the accused appellants were recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. The oral and documentary evidence were put to each of the accused appellants in question form, who denied the allegations made against them. However, they did not produce any oral or documentary evidence in defence. 9. After appreciating the evidence on record and after hearing learned Counsel for the parties, the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun vide his judg­ment and order dated 6.5.1997 convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as mentioned above. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the present appeal has been preferred. 10. Sri L.K. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the accused appellant Dileep argued that the charge-sheet in the present case was filed in the Court of Special Judge-Il Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun on 6.6.1994 and the Special Court i.e. Special Judge-ll Additional Sessions judge, De­hradun for the otfence under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the offence under sections 452 and 325 IPC, could not take cognizance of offence straight away with­out the case being committed to the Court. He further submitted that the charge-sheet cannot straight away be laid before Special Court. I find force in the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the accused ap­pellant Dileep for the reasons to be stated hereinafter. 11. As regard the jurisdiction, it is necessary to refer section. 14 of the Act which is as follows: - "14. Special Court - For the purpose of providing for speedy trial, the State Government shall, with the concur­rence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify for each district a Court of Session to be a Special Court to try the offences under this Act." From the above-said provision, it can be seen that the Special Court is constituted by the Act with concurrence with the Chief Justice of the High Court by a Notification with an object of speedy trial of the of­fences under the Act. 12. 12. A perusal of the -Act does not show any procedure prescribed for trial of the offences under the Act, and also does not specifically bar the procedure pre­scribed under the Cr.P.C. No doubt the language employed in the above section shows that it is a Court of Session. 13. The relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C are in section 173, which deals with report of the Police Officer after completion of investigation. Section 190 Cr.P.C. deals with the procedure of taking into cogni­zance of the offence by the Magistrate and after taking cognizance of the offence, the procedure prescribed under sections 207 and 209 of the Cr. P.C. has to be followed. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract the provisions under sections 193 and 209 of Cr.P.C. - "193. Cognizance of offences by Courts of Session: - Except as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court of Sessions 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. 209. Commitment of case to Court of Ses­sions 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 Sessions, he shall - (a) commit the case to the Court of Sessions; (b) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody during, and until the conclusion of, the trial; (c) send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and arti­cles, if any, which are to be pro­duced in evidence; (d) notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions." 14. A reading of section 193 shows that a Court of Sessions is barred from taking into cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magis­trate and section 209 of the Cr.P.C ex­pressly provides that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclu­sively by the Court of Sessions, such cases shall be committed to a Court of Sessions. 15. 15. A combined reading of these two provisions only goes to show that the Magis­trate Court is the initial Court to take cogni­zance of any offence including that of an offence exclusively triable by a Court of Ses­sions. It is for the Magistrate to decide whether the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions or not. In other words, if the offence falls under the category of of­fences which are exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the Magistrate has to commit the same to the Court of Sessions for trial. It further follows that the Court of Ses­sions cannot directly take into cognizance of any offence unless provided by the Cr.P.C or by any other law. After such committal, the procedure for trial prescribed under Chapter XVIII of the Cr.P.C has to be followed. 16. Now, it has to be seen whether the Special Court constituted under the Act has made any express provision with regard to taking into cognizance of an offence by the Special Court without there being any committal proceeding by the Magistrate as provided under sections 193 and 209 of the Cr.P.C. 17. As already observed, except sec­tion 14 of the Act, no other express provi­sion is available under the Act to try the offence under the Act by taking into cogni­zance straight away. Further no procedure to try any offence by Special Court is pre­scribed under the Act equivalent to that of the procedure prescribed under Chapter XVIII of the Cr.P.C, nor there is any specific provision expressly excluding the proce­dure prescribed under sections 193 and 209 of the Cr.P.C. 18. Learned Counsel for the accused appellant referred to a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Moly and another v. State of Kerala, 2004 SCC (Cri.) 1348 = 2004 (49) ACC 130 (SC) and re­lied on para 16 of the said judgment which reads as under: - "16. Hence, we have no doubt that a Special Court under this Act is es-_ sentially 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. In other words, a complaint or a charge-sheet cannot straight away be laid down before the Special Court un­der the Act. We are reiterating the view taken by this Court in Gan-gula Ashok v. State of A.P. and in Vidhyadharan v. State of Kerala in above terms with which we are in respectful agreement. The Sessions Court in the case at hand, undis-putedly has acted as one of original jurisdiction, and the requirements of section 193 were not met." 19. Therefore, in the light of the de­tailed discussion made in the judgment referred to above and the relevant provi­sions of the Act and the Cr.P.C. as well as in view of the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Moly and another (supra), I am of the considered view that Special Court could not have tried the offence under the Act by directly taking into cognizance of the offence de­viating from the procedure prescribed un­der the Cr.P.C and thereby vitiate the trial of the offence by the Special Court render­ing such trial as without jurisdiction and consequently any judgment rendered by such Court without jurisdiction, would not be a judgment in the eye of law. 20. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 6.5.1997 passed by II Addi­tional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Special Sessions Trial No. 12/1994, State v. Dileep and another, is hereby set aside only in re­spect of accused appellant Dileep. The conviction and sentence awarded to him as discussed above is hereby also set aside. Appeal in respect of accused appellant No. 2 Ram Gopal @ Gopal has already been dismissed being not pressed vide order dated 23.5.2006 passed by this Court. 21. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Trial Court for its compliance. Let the lower Court record be sent back. Appeal Allowed.