Judgment Heard. Perused. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for hearing by mutual consent of parties. 2. The petitioner, complainant in F.I.R. No.72/2009 dated 11.7.2009, registered with Biloli Police Station, under Sections 447, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(v) and (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, has moved this petition for quashing the orders dated 20.8.2009 below Exhibit 30 and dated 7.7.2010 below Exhibit 35 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Biloli in R.C.C. No.84/2009 concerning framing of charges, and for direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class for committal of the case to the learned Sessions Court, Biloli. 3. The complaint dated 11.7.2009, which had prompted the registration of the crime, reveals allegations that the respondent Nos.2 to 4 had assaulted and hurled abuses in relation to the caste of the complainant around 12.00 noon on 9.7.2009 in the open agricultural field Gat No.212, situated at Kesarali Shivar belonging to the complainant and had further administered mortal threats to him. On completion of the investigation, the charge sheet -Charge Sheet No.60/2009 under Sections 447, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) (v) and (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 was lodged in the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Biloli's Court on 5.8.2009. 4. It appears that, the accused/ respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein filed true copies of school leaving certificates (Exhibits 27 to 29), showing their caste as "Lingdare" -a caste listed as Sr.No.34 in the Presidential Order passed under Article 34(1) of the Constitution of India as a scheduled Caste, and the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, on considering the said certificates passed order dated 20.8.2009, thereby holding that the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were not attracted to the case in hand and as such, there was no offence which was triable exclusively by the Sessions Court/ Special Court. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Biloli thereafter proceeded to frame charge under Sections 447, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 on the same day. 5. At Annexure B to the petition, there is copy of the application Exhibit 35, dated 18.11.2009 filed by the petitioner for ordering enquiry in light of the extract of revenue record in Form No.'C' showing father of the respondents/ accused as a person belonging to Wani community -non S.C. -S.T. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Biloli called for explanation of the respondent/ accused along with a caste certificate. No explanation or caste certificate was tendered. However, the respondents/ accused appeared to have filed say Exhibit 41, reiterating their earlier contentions as persons belonging to Lingdare community -Scheduled Caste. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Biloli recorded the past developments in the proceedings and observed that it had no right to review the earlier order. The application Exhibit 35 was thus put to an end on 7.7.2010. Whatever be the controversy between the parties over the alleged caste of the accused, the only pertinent question is regarding competency of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Biloli to probe into the merits of the allegations made in the charge sheet and for that purpose, examine the material presented by either parties i.e. the material extraneous to the charge and to decide whether the case is fit to be committed to the Special Court constituted under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 or not. 6. Learned Advocate Mr. Suryawanshi for the petitioner submitted that under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the Magistrate has merely to ascertain whether the case as disclosed by the charge sheet appears to him to be an offence triable exclusively by the Special Court, and it is not open to him to evaluate the merit of such disclosures. For this purpose, he relied on the judgment of Gauhati High Court, reported in 1990 CRI.L.J. 6 :-State of Assam Vs. Hit Ram Deka. Learned Advocate Mr. For this purpose, he relied on the judgment of Gauhati High Court, reported in 1990 CRI.L.J. 6 :-State of Assam Vs. Hit Ram Deka. Learned Advocate Mr. Godhamgaonkar for the contesting respondent Nos.2 to 4 submitted that neither the F.I.R. dated 11.7.2009 nor the statements of the witnesses recorded in the course of investigation made any disclosure regarding the caste of any of the accused and as such, no wrong was committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class in answering the question regarding the caste of the accused, which is a material ingredient of the offence/s under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, from the material produced by the respondents/ accused. 7. Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which governs the committal proceedings before the Magistrate, reads as under : "209. 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, after complying with the provisions of Section 207 or Section 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; (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 Session." Key phrase in the said provision is "it appears to the Magistrate". It does not connote any further enquiry necessary for satisfaction of the Magistrate. The Magistrate has only to ascertain as to what the charge sheet has to disclose and if on its plain reading it appears to the judicial mind of the Magistrate that there exists an offence triable exclusively by a Court of Session, herein the Special Court, then he has no option but to commit the case to such Court. The Magistrate has only to ascertain as to what the charge sheet has to disclose and if on its plain reading it appears to the judicial mind of the Magistrate that there exists an offence triable exclusively by a Court of Session, herein the Special Court, then he has no option but to commit the case to such Court. The Single Bench of the Gauhati High Court was of the same view as entertained by this Court in the following words :- "The Single Bench of the Gaunati High Court in Hit Ram Deka's case voiced the same views as in the following words :- "The expression 'it appears to the Magistrate' does not connote satisfaction of the Magistrate. The normal connotation of the word appear 'it seems' or 'to be in one's opinion'. Mere opinion of the Magistrate must prevail. It does not depend upon the fact of sufficiency or insufficiency of the material. There is no scope for a formal inquiry except to comply the formalities of Section 207 or 208, as the case may be, and shall formally commit the case to the Court of Sessions." 8. In the instant case, learned A.P.P. Mr. Borade for the State, from the charge sheet, pointed out that at para 10 of the final report, the caste of the respondents/ accused was specifically mentioned as "Lingayat" -non S.C. -S.T. In light of this disclosure in the charge sheet, it was not open for the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Biloli to have gone into the merit of the said allegation by looking at the material extraneous to the charge sheet i.e. the School Leaving Certificates, Exhibits 27 and 28 tendered by the accused. In doing so, the learned Magistrate not only misconstrued the provision of law under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 but virtually usurped the role of the Special Court to consider the merit of the charge sheet and the papers of investigation accompanying it. It was only for the Special Court to evaluate the merit of the charge sheet vis-a-vis the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith in order to answer the pertinent question whether there is or there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the applicant/ accused under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. It was only for the Special Court to evaluate the merit of the charge sheet vis-a-vis the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith in order to answer the pertinent question whether there is or there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the applicant/ accused under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. As regards the merit of the disclosures in the F.I.R., learned Advocate Mr. Suryawanshi for the petitioner cited the following judgments: 1) 2009 (3) SCC 789 :-Ashabai Machindra Adhagale Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. 2) 2009 (3) Mh.L.J. 489 :-Pushpa Vijay Bonde Vs. State of Maharashtra. In both the cases, non mentioning of the caste of accused in F.I.R. was not considered fatal to the case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Disclosures in the course of investigation ultimately spell out the tenability of such case in law. However, rationale in the said cases is of little assistance in interpreting the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is applicable in the present case. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (C). Order dated 7.7.2010, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Biloli below application Exhibit 35 in R.C.C. No.84/2009 is set aside. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Biloli is directed to take steps for committal of the said case to the Special Court constituted under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in accordance with law. Criminal Writ Petition No.730/2010 stands disposed off accordingly.