JUDGMENT : Z.K. Saiyed, J. The present Appeal, under Section 374(II) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is filed by the appellants (original accused Nos. 1 to 4) against the Judgment and order dated 05.03.1998 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, in Sessions Case No.170 of 1993, whereby learned Judge has held the appellants (original accused) guilty (i) for the offence punishable under Section 341 and 114 of I.P. Code read with Section 3(1)(10) of Atrocity Act and sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each i/d to further undergo SI for 20 days; (ii) held the appellants No.1 & 2 - original accused guilty for the offence under Section 323 of I.P. Code and sentenced them to suffer SI for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each i/d to undergo further SI for 20 days. The learned Judge has acquitted the accused for the offences under sections 504, 506(2) of I.P. Code, and acquitted the appellant - accused No.2 for the offence under Section 135 of the B.P. Act. The learned Judge has also granted the benefit of probation to the appellant No.3 - original accused No.3. The learned Judge has ordered that the sentences imposed upon the accused shall run concurrently. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant was serving as Teacher in village Pal, Dist. Surat. It is alleged that on 16.10.1993, at about 11.00 a.m., when the complainant was reaching home from his school, at that time, near Shivajinagar in two vehicles, the accused came near him and stopped him and said "Gamtala, Chaudhara, why do you wrongly instigates the hutments people and get dumping for levelling in Zumpadpatti". The accused were also giving filthy abuses to the complainant and thereafter, accused No.1 caught hold of the collar of his shirt and gave fisticuffs on his face. The accused No.2 gave blow of cycle chain on his back and the accused Nos. 3 & 4 were giving filthy abuses and accused No.4 also gave threat to cause his death. It is alleged that at that time persons nearby came and, therefore, the accused ran away. It is also alleged that while going away they also gave threat that "you Advisasis, vacate the hutments and go somewhere, otherwise some worst thing would happen. 3 & 4 were giving filthy abuses and accused No.4 also gave threat to cause his death. It is alleged that at that time persons nearby came and, therefore, the accused ran away. It is also alleged that while going away they also gave threat that "you Advisasis, vacate the hutments and go somewhere, otherwise some worst thing would happen. Thereafter, the complainant filed complaint on 16.10.1993 before Rander Police Station vide CR No. I - 412/93 against the accused for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506(2), 114 of I.P. Code and under Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "Atrocity Act") and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The police registered the offence against the accused and investigated into the matter. 3. Necessary investigation was carried out by the Police. The statements of the complainant and other witnesses were recorded. Panchnama of scene of offence was also drawn. The complainant injured was sent for medical treatment in the Hospital. Thereafter, after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the appellants - accused for offences under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506(2), 114 of I.P. Code, under Sections 3(1) (10) of the Atrocity Act and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act before the Sessions Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges against the appellants - accused. The appellants - accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 4. To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined the witnesses and also relied upon the documents and at the end of trial, after recording the statement of appellants - accused, under Section 313 Cr. P.C., and after hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the learned Judge held the appellants (original accused) guilty of the offences charged against them and awarded sentence as narrated herein above. 5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid Judgment and order of conviction and sentence the appellants - accused has preferred this Appeal. 6. Heard learned Counsel Mr. K.J. Shethna, appearing on behalf of the appellants and learned APP Mr. H.L. Jani, on behalf of the respondent - State. I have gone through the Judgment and order passed by the Special Court and also considered the documents produced on the record of the case. 7. 6. Heard learned Counsel Mr. K.J. Shethna, appearing on behalf of the appellants and learned APP Mr. H.L. Jani, on behalf of the respondent - State. I have gone through the Judgment and order passed by the Special Court and also considered the documents produced on the record of the case. 7. Learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants - accused has contended that the appellants - accused have not committed any offence, as alleged against them in the charge. He has read the Rule-7 of the Atrocity Rules and contended that the said Rule has been framed in the year 1995 and in the present case, the offence alleged to have been committed on 16.10.1993, and, therefore, the learned Judge has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of any offence for trial without commitment of the case by the learned Magistrate in terms of Section 193 Cr. P.C. He has read the charge as well as the papers and contended that originally the charge-sheet was filed against the present appellants for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506(2), 114 of I.P. Code read with Section 3(1)(10) of Atrocity Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. He has contended that without the original jurisdiction, cognizance was taken by him. He has contended that neither in the Code nor in the Act there is any provision empowering the Sessions Court to take cognizance of the offences under the Act as the Court of original jurisdiction without the case being committed to it by the learned Magistrate. He has also contended that the Sessions Court is not empowered to direct the investigating Agency to submit charge-sheet before that Court. Mr. Shethna has also placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaswant & Anr. v. State Of Rajasthan, reported in 2009 (2) GLH 429 . Mr. Shethna has also placed reliance upon a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court, reported in 2008 (1) GLH 193 and contended that the learned Judge cannot take cognizance of an offence without the case being committed to it by the learned Magistrate. He, therefore, contended that the learned Judge has not considered this material aspect of the matter and has erred in holding the appellants - accused guilty for the charges levelled against him. 8. He, therefore, contended that the learned Judge has not considered this material aspect of the matter and has erred in holding the appellants - accused guilty for the charges levelled against him. 8. Learned APP Jani, has supported the Judgment of the trial Court and contended that looking to the facts and evidence on record the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Judge has rightly held the appellants guilty of the offences charged against them and, therefore, no interference is required to be called for. However, he has fairly admitted that neither in the Code nor in the Act, there is any provision empowering the Sessions Court to take cognizance of an offence under the Act as the Court of original jurisdiction without the case being committed to it by a learned Magistrate. 9. Heard the learned Counsel, appearing for the parties. I have also gone through the papers produced before me. I have also gone through the Judgment of the Court below and also considered the oral evidence of the complainant and other witnesses. I have also considered the decisions cited by Mr. Shethna. 9. Heard the learned Counsel, appearing for the parties. I have also gone through the papers produced before me. I have also gone through the Judgment of the Court below and also considered the oral evidence of the complainant and other witnesses. I have also considered the decisions cited by Mr. Shethna. In the case of Jaswant v. State of Rajasthan (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under : "Whether the Sessions Court has original jurisdiction to take cognizance of any offence for trial without commitment of the case by a Magistrate in terms of Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Neither in the Code nor in the Act there is any provision empowering Sessions Court to take cognizance of an offence under the Act as a Court of original jurisdiction without the case being committed to it by a Magistrate - Even otherwise, Sessions Court is not empowered to direct the investigating Agency to submit a chargesheet." Even the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of H.P. Dave v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2008 (1) GLH 193 has observed that ..."Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - section 482 - Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - S.3(1)(x) - offence under - Taking cognizance of by Special Court upon a complainant directly filed before him by issuing process - whether permissible - Held in negative - Special Judge himself cannot take cognizance of an offence without the case being committed to it by learned Magistrate - Complaint quashed with appropriate direction." 10. From the perusal of above facts, it clearly appears that neither in the Code nor in the Act there is any provision empowering the Sessions Court to take cognizance of offence under the Act as the Court of original jurisdiction without the case being committed to it by learned Magistrate. Even the Sessions Court is also not empowered to direct the investigating Agency to submit charge-sheet before that Court. From the above observation it is clear that the learned Judge himself cannot take cognizance of that offence without the case being committed to it by the learned Magistrate. Even the Sessions Court is also not empowered to direct the investigating Agency to submit charge-sheet before that Court. From the above observation it is clear that the learned Judge himself cannot take cognizance of that offence without the case being committed to it by the learned Magistrate. The learned Judge should have considered the fact that unless and until the charge sheet was submitted in the Court of learned Magistrate and unless and until the procedure as to the committal proceedings were followed by the learned Magistrate and the case is committed to the Court of Sessions by the learned Magistrate, the Sessions Court would not have directly taken cognizance of the offence against the accused. In the present case, the learned Judge, without the case being committed by the learned Magistrate, himself has taken cognizance of the offences, which is not permissible in the eyes of law and on this ground alone, the Judgment of the Sessions Court is required to be quashed and set aside. 11. In view of above, the Appeal is allowed. The Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 05.03.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, in Sessions Case No. 170 of 1993, holding the appellants - accused guilty of the offences charged against them, is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellants - accused are hereby acquitted from the offences charged against them. Bail Bonds shall stand discharged. Fine, if paid, be refunded to the appellants. Record & Proceeding to be sent back to the trial Court immediately. Appeal allowed.