Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1266 (MP)

Mohammad Juned v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2014-10-04

J.K.MAHESHWARI

body2014
ORDER : 1. This revision under Section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 15.05.2013 passed by the Sessions judge Ratlam in Sessions Trial No. 13/2013, relegating the trial for adjudication by the Special Judge notified under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as Prevention of Atrocities Act). In the present case an offence was registered at Crime No. 96/2013 by Police Station industrial Area, Ratlam under Section 363, 366, 342, 506-B & 376-D of IPC and also under Section 5(g), 6 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "POCSO Act") and Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, wherein challan was filed in the court of sessions notified as "Children's Court." 2. Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the cognizance had taken by the Court of Sessions, notified under POCSO Act, which is transferred by Sessions Judge, Ratlam vide order dated 15.05.2013 to the Special Judge notified under the Prevention of Atrocities Act. It is his grievance that having involved in the offence under the POCSO Act and the Prevention of Atrocities Act both along with offences of IPC, challan may be filed before the Court of Sessions notified to hear the cases under POCSO Act, however, assignment of the case for trial to the Special Judge, Prevention of Atrocities is illegal. It is submitted that before Special Judge Prevention of Atrocities challan is not required to file directly and the said court shall try the case cases received after committal by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. In the present case, challan has been filed directly before the Court of Sessions, however, it shall affect the trial prejudicing the accused. In support of such contention reliance has been placed on a judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Gangula Ashok and Another vs. State of A.P. 2000 SCC (Cri.) 488. It is further submitted that the prevention Atrocities Act is of Year 1989, while the POCSO Act is of 2012 and both are special enactments, the POCSO Act being later enactment shall prevail applying the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant. It is further submitted that the prevention Atrocities Act is of Year 1989, while the POCSO Act is of 2012 and both are special enactments, the POCSO Act being later enactment shall prevail applying the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant. Thus, by passing the order impugned, transfer of the session trial to the Special Judge Prevention of Atrocities is against the law laid down by the Apex Court, however, the order impugned may be set aside and the case may be directed to be decided by the Court of Sessions notified under the POCSO Act. 3. Shri R.S. Basis, learned Deputy G.A. appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that under Section 14 of the Prevention of Atrocities Act the Courts have been notified in every district while as per Section 25 of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2005") a Court of Sessions in the district may hear and decide the offences of said Act shall be declared as a "Children's Court" to provide speedy trial for such offences and to try the cases of Rights to Juvenile. As per proviso to Section 28 of the POCSO Act, it is clear that notification issued under the Act of 2005 shall be applicable to try the offences and cases of POCSO Act. Thus, in the present case, the offences involved for trial are of both the special enactments and also of IPC; however, the Sessions Judge, Ratlam, has rightly relegated the trial for adjudication before the special Judge Prevention of Atrocities, Ratlam, who is also a Court of sessions and may try the offences against children. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, even the provisions of POCSO Act would prevail, being later enactment, but to adopt the harmonious, interpretation the order impugned passed by the Sessions Judge, Ratlam is in accordance with law. In addition thereto after submitting the trial programme and recording statements of various witnesses, by the Special Judge, Prevention of Atrocities interference at this stage is not warranted. 4. In addition thereto after submitting the trial programme and recording statements of various witnesses, by the Special Judge, Prevention of Atrocities interference at this stage is not warranted. 4. Thus, looking to the said submissions, the questions of general importance which are involved, that on registration of the offences under multiple Acts including offence of "POCSO Act" and "Prevention of Atrocities Act" and also of the IPC, whether it is to be tried by the Court notified under Section 14 of the Prevention of Atrocities Act or by the Court notified under Section 28 of the POCSO Act. It may also be seen that under both the Acts Courts have been separately notified, however the trial shall be split up for trial by respective Courts or may continue in one Special Court. It is further required to be seen that in a cases involving the offence of both the said enactments, if charge sheet is filed before the Court of Sessions notified/as "Children's Court" the transfer of the said case before Special Court Prevention of Atrocities would vitiate the trial, as per the Judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Gangula Ashok (supra). 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, and to advert the argument as advanced, first of all the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, the Act of 2005, as well as the POCSO Act are required to be seen. As per Section 14 of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, to provide speedy trial to the victims, the State Government, after concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, ought to notify a Court of Sessions to be a Special Court to try the offences under the said Act. As per Section 15, it has further been specified that for every Special Court, in the district a Special Public Prosecutor to assist the Court shall be appointed. In exercise of the power the undivided State of M.P. vide notification dated 30th January, 1990 after concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court of M.P. published a notification establishing the Special Courts to try the offences under the Prevention of Atrocities Act, in M.P. Rajpatra. In exercise of the power the undivided State of M.P. vide notification dated 30th January, 1990 after concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court of M.P. published a notification establishing the Special Courts to try the offences under the Prevention of Atrocities Act, in M.P. Rajpatra. The said notification is reproduced as under:- Name of the District Name of the Special Court of Sessions Balaghat Session Court Balaghat Bastarat Jugdalpur Session Court Bastarat Jugdalpur Betul Session Court Betul Bhind Session Court Bhind Bhopal Session Court Bhopal Bilaspur Session Court Bilaspur Chhindwara Session Court Chhindwara Chhatarpur Session Court Chhatarpur Damoh Session Court Damoh Datia Session Court Datia Durg Session Court Durg East Nimar (Khandwa) Session Court East Nimar (Khandwa) Guna Session Court Guna Gwalior Session Court Gwalior Hoshangabad Session Court Hoshangabad Indore Session Court Indore Jabalpur Session Court Jabalpur Jhabua Session Court Jhabua Mandleshwar Session Court Mandleshwar Mandsaur Session Court Mandsaur Morena Session Court Morena Narsinghpur Session Court Narsinghpur Panna Session Court Panna Raigarh Session Court Raigarh Raipur Session Court Raipur Raisen Session Court Raisen Rajgarh Session Court Rajgarh Rajnandgaon Session Court Rajnandgaon Ratlam Session Court Ratlam Rewa Session Court Rewa Sagar Session Court Sagar Satna Session Court Satna Sehore Session Court Sehore Seoni Session Court Seoni Shahdol Session Court Shahdol Shajapur Session Court Shajapur Shivpuri Session Court Shivpuri Sidhi Session Court Sidhi Surguja at Ambikapur Session Court Ambikapur Tikamgarh Session Court Tikamgarh Ujjain Session Court Ujjain Vidisha Session Court Vidisha "Notification F. No. 1-2-90-XXI-B(I), dated 30th January, 1990-In exercise of the powers conferred by section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (No. 33 of 1989), the State Government, with the concurrence of Honourable the Chief Justice of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, hereby specifies for each of the districts mentioned in column (1) of the table below, a Court of Sessions specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table to be a Special Court to try the offences under the said Act:- 6. Thereafter the State Government vide Notification dated 26th October, 1995, published in the Gazette of 10.11.1995 has decided to declare a Court of Sessions to be Special Court and Judge posted by the High Court shall discharge the function from the date he assumes the charge of his office in the said Court. Thereafter the State Government vide Notification dated 26th October, 1995, published in the Gazette of 10.11.1995 has decided to declare a Court of Sessions to be Special Court and Judge posted by the High Court shall discharge the function from the date he assumes the charge of his office in the said Court. The said notification is also relevant and changes nature of the earlier Notification dated 30th January, 1990; however, it is reproduced as under:- "Notification No. 1-2-90-XXXI-B(1), dated 26th October, 1995 - In exercise of the powers conferred by section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (No. 33 of 1989), the State Government, with the concurrence of Honourable the Chief Justice of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, hereby specify for each of the following districts a Court of Session to be a Special Court to try the offences under the said Act from the date the Judge, of that Special Court to be posted by the High Court, assumes the charge of his office in the said court, namely:- 1. Dhar 2. Shajapur 3. Morena 4. Shahdol 5. Damoh 6. Raisen 7. Mandla 8. Kaipur 9. Bastar 10. Bilaspur 2. This supersedes this Department Notification No. 1-2-90XXI-B (I) dated the 30th January, 1990 so far as it relates to the Constitution of Special Courts in the above districts. 3. All cases pending the Special Courts of the above ten districts on the date of constitution of Special Courts under para 1 shall stand transferred to the Special Court constituted under para 1." 7. In furtherance to the said notification the Judges have been posted to discharge the function of Special Court from the date on which they assumes the charge. It is further apparent that by this notification the earlier notification dated 30th January, 1990 was superseded. In a similar fashion, various other notifications have been issued which are of dated 19th February 1997, 4th May 2007, 15th September 2009 and 9th August 2011. In the district Ratlam, vide notification dated 4th May 2007 the Special under Prevention of Atrocities Act, was established. The said notification is reproduced as under:- "F. No. 1-2-90-XXI-Bd. In a similar fashion, various other notifications have been issued which are of dated 19th February 1997, 4th May 2007, 15th September 2009 and 9th August 2011. In the district Ratlam, vide notification dated 4th May 2007 the Special under Prevention of Atrocities Act, was established. The said notification is reproduced as under:- "F. No. 1-2-90-XXI-Bd. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 14 of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (No. 33 of 1989), the State Government, with the concurrence of Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, hereby specify for each of the following districts Court of Session to be a special Court to try the offences under the said Act from the date, the Judge of that Special court, to be posted by the High Court, assumes the charge of his offence in the said court, namely:- 1. Balaghat 2. Barwani 3. Betul 4. Chhindwara 5. Datia 6. East Nimar Khandwa 7. Harda 8. Katni 9. Neemuch 10. Ratlam 11. Sheopur 12. Shivpuri 13. Sidhi 14. Seoni 1. This supersedes this Department Notification No. 1.2.90/XXI-B(1) dated the 30th January, 1990 so far as it related to the Constitution of Special Courts in the above districts. 2. This also supersedes this Department Notification No. 1.2-90/XXI-B(1) dated 19th August 2004, and Notification of even Number dated 17th March 2006 so far as it relates to the Special Courts in Neemuch, Katni and Sheopurkala districts. 3. All cases pending in the special courts of the above 14 districts on the date of constitution of Special Courts under para 1 shall stand transferred to the Special Courts constituted under para-1." 8. After issuance of the said notification various Additional Sessions Judges have been posted to discharge functions of the Special Court Prevention of Atrocities, Ratlam, being Court of Sessions. As per order dated 21st March 2013, passed by the High Court of M.P. which is relevant for the purpose of this case, Shri Bhagchand Malaiya, Additional Sessions Judge has been posted as a Presiding Officer, Special Court, Prevention of Atrocities, Ratlam, who is discharging the function at the same place. 9. It is relevant to note that the Prevention of Atrocities Act, do not specify any mode for investigation or enquiring into or trial. As per Section 2(b) "Code" means the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973. 9. It is relevant to note that the Prevention of Atrocities Act, do not specify any mode for investigation or enquiring into or trial. As per Section 2(b) "Code" means the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973. Thus, after investigation as per the Police Regulation the other procedure for taking cognizance and to conduct the trial shall be as per the procedure specified in the Code of Criminal Procedure which may relevant for the purpose of this case, therefore, reproduced as under:- "20. Act to override other laws - Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any custom or usage or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law." 10. In view of the provisions as contained in the Act as well as the notifications issued it is apparent that to prevent the commission of offences of Atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and schedule Tribes by the members of other castes and to provide for Special Courts for the speedy trial of such offences and for the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offences would be dealt with as per the provisions of the Prevention of Atrocities Act and the cases of the said offences be tried as per the procedure prescribed under the code of Criminal Procedure by the Special Courts notified for that purpose. It has also been specified that the provisions of the said Act shall have its effect until inconsistency therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any custom or usages or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law. 11. The parliament has also enacted, the Commissions for Protection of Child Right Act, 2005, providing protection to the Children of the Country on violation of their rights and to ensure their development. Under the said Act, violation of the rights of the children would be an offence and shall be tried by a court of sessions. 11. The parliament has also enacted, the Commissions for Protection of Child Right Act, 2005, providing protection to the Children of the Country on violation of their rights and to ensure their development. Under the said Act, violation of the rights of the children would be an offence and shall be tried by a court of sessions. As per Section 25 of the said Act, the State Government is bound to declare at least a Court of Session as the "Children's Court" with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court of the State in each district to provide speedy trial for the offence against the children, or to violation of their rights. In furtherance to the said Act by issuing a notification in the official gazette on 07.01.2011 in every Sessions Division, a Court of Sessions has been declared as "Children's Court." The said notification is reproduced as under:- "Notification F. No. 17(E) 38-2010-XVI-B(1), dated 7th January, 2011 - In exercise of the powers conferred by section 25 of Commissions for protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (No. 1 of 2006), the State Government concurrence of the chief justice of the High Court of Court of Madhya Pradesh, hereby specifies Court of Sessions in each Sessions Division of the State as a Children's Court for the purpose of providing speedy trial of offences against children or of violation of Child Rights." 12. The Parliament has recently enacted - The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, with an object to protect the children from sexual assault, harassment or pornography with a view to prevent the inducement or coercing of a child from any unlawful sexual activity and to prevent exploitive use of children in prostitution or in pornographic purposes. As per Section 28 the designation of a Special Court has been specified, to provide speedy trial of the said offences. It is reproduced as under:- "28. As per Section 28 the designation of a Special Court has been specified, to provide speedy trial of the said offences. It is reproduced as under:- "28. Designation of Special Courts - (1) For the purposes of providing a speedy trial, the State Government shall in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification in the official Gazette, designate for each district, a Court of Session to be a Special Court to try the offences under the Act: Provided that if a Court of Session of notified as a Children's Court under the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (4 of 2006) or a Special Court designed for similar purposes under any other law for the time being in force, then such court shall be deemed to be a Special Court under this section. (2) While trying an offence under this Act, a Special Court shall also try an offence other than the offence referred to in sub-section (1), with which the accused may under the code of criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be charged at the same trial. (3) The Special Court constituted under this Act, notwithstanding anything in the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), shall have jurisdiction to try offences under Section 67B of that Act insofar as it relates to publication or transmission of sexually explicit material depicting children in any act, or conduct or manner or facilities abuse of children online." 13. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the State Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court of the State and by notification in the official gazette shall designate for each district a Court of Sessions to be a Special Court to try the offences under this Act. It has further been made clear that if a Court of Sessions is notified as a "Children's Court" under the Act of 2005 or a Special Court designated for similar purposes under any other law for the time being in force, then such Court shall be deemed to be a Special Court under this Section. It further provides that while trying any offence under this Act the Special Court shall also try an offence with which the accused may under the Penal Code be charged at the same time. It further provides that while trying any offence under this Act the Special Court shall also try an offence with which the accused may under the Penal Code be charged at the same time. The said Court is having jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 67-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 insofar it related to the publication or transmission of sexual explicit material depicting children in any Act or conduct or manner or facilitate abuse of children mind. Thus as per notification dated 7th January 2011 issued under the Act of 2005, a Court of Sessions in each session division declared as "Children's Court" shall be deemed to a special Court for the purpose of POCSO Act. 14. As per Section 31 of the POCSO Act, it is clear, that if otherwise not provided, the Code of Criminal Procedure shall apply to the proceeding of special court, which shall be the Court of Sessions and the person conducting the cases in the said Court shall be called as Special Public Prosecutor, and his appointment shall be as per Section 32 of the Act. Under Chapter VIII of the Act the procedure and power of special Court for recording the evidence has also specified. Thereby the special Court may take cognizance of offence without the accused being committed and also required to follow the procedure specified in Sections 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38. Thus, except the said additional provision, the trial shall proceed as per code of criminal procedure. Act provides non-obstante clause, which is relevant, however, reproduced as under:- "42A Act not in derogation of any other law - The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force and, in case of any inconsistency, the provisions of this Act shall have overriding effect on the provisions of any such law to the extent of the inconsistency." 15. In view of the foregoing provisions of the Act of 2005 and the POCSO Act it is apparent that the "Children's Court" has been established for the purpose of the trial to the offences of POCSO Act and to provide protection to children and to determine their rights as specified under the said Acts. In view of the foregoing provisions of the Act of 2005 and the POCSO Act it is apparent that the "Children's Court" has been established for the purpose of the trial to the offences of POCSO Act and to provide protection to children and to determine their rights as specified under the said Acts. The non-obstante clause makes it clear that the provisions of the POCSO Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force in case of any inconsistency then the provision of the POCSO Act would prevail. In view of the aforesaid, it is apparent that under the Preventions of Atrocities Act and POSCO Act, a Court of Sessions has been declared to be the special Court, as per the notifications mentioned herein above. 16. As per Section 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Court of Sessions has been specified whereby the State Government shall establish a court of Sessions, and every Court of Sessions shall be presided over by a Judge to be appointed by the High Court. It has further been clarified that the High Court may also appoint Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges to exercise the power of Sessions Court in every Court of Session. However, it is clear that the function of a Court of Sessions may be discharged by the Sessions Judge or the Additional Sessions Judges or the Assistant Sessions Judges, as the case may be, as per orders of the High Court. On the said issue guidance may be taken from the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Abdul Mannan vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1996 SC 905 wherein it is held that the Additional Sessions Judge posted under the Code by the High Court gets all the powers and jurisdiction of the Sessions Court to try the offences specified under the Code. However, it is clear that in one Sessions Division the Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judges posted may discharge the functions of a Court of Sessions. Thus Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, is competent to proceed with the trial of the Prevention of Atrocities and also of juvenile offences under the said Acts. However, it is clear that in one Sessions Division the Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judges posted may discharge the functions of a Court of Sessions. Thus Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, is competent to proceed with the trial of the Prevention of Atrocities and also of juvenile offences under the said Acts. Thus, in realm of the statutory vindicta it is clear that a Court of Sessions may be notified either under the Preventions of Atrocities Act or under the POCSO Act; and the Additional Sessions Judge or Sessions Judge appointed by the High Court may discharge the function of a Court of Sessions in every court of Sessions in their Sessions Division or to exercise the power conferred by the High Court for other Sessions Division. 17. As per Section 4 of the Cr.P.C. it is apparent that all the offences under the IPC shall be investigated, enquired into and tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions contained herein after. Sub-section (2) makes it clear that all the offences under any other law shall be investigated, enquired into and tried and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating manners or place of investigating, enquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. Meaning thereby the Code of Criminal Procedure is having its application in general for the purpose of enquiry, trial or for other purposes subject to any procedure prescribed in the special enactment. In the said context and looking to the provisions of the Preventions of Atrocities Act and POCSO Act, no mode of trial except provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure has been specified there under. But under POCSO Act, the procedure specified in Sections 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38 is in addition to the procedure prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure, which shall be followed by the said Court during trial. 18. In the context of the aforesaid, but looking to the language of Section 26(b) Cr.P.C. it appears that any offence under any other law shall be tried by such Court as provided by such law. However, whether it is incumbent to try this case involving the offences of both the Acts, by the respective special Court or may be tried by a Court of Sessions. However, whether it is incumbent to try this case involving the offences of both the Acts, by the respective special Court or may be tried by a Court of Sessions. In the said context the language of notifications notifying two special Courts under the different Acts is relevant, to found the answer that the offences registered under different Act including the provisions of the IPC can be tried by a Court of Sessions notified in two different enactments. It may also be required to advert that which of the aforementioned enactments having overriding effect. In this regard, the guidance may be taken from the Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, 11th Edition, Page 361 whereby it is clear that sometime one find two or more enactments operating in the same field and each containing a non-obstante clause, in that event, the conflict in such cases may be resolved on consideration of purpose and policy underlying the enactment and the language used in them. The judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarwan Singh vs. Kasturilal, AIR 1997 SC 265 is also relevant on this issue by which the Apex Court lay down the guidelines for resolving a conflict of two non-obstante clauses contained in two different statutes. In the said case, the issue with respect to the applicability of the Delhi Rent Act was involved wherein it was held that when two or more laws operate in same field and each contained a non-obstante clause indicating the provisions giving overriding effect to any other law, the cases to be decided in reference to the object and purpose of the law under consideration and applying a test that the later enactment must prevail over the earlier one. 19. In an another case of Jain Ink Mfg. & Co. vs. LIC of India and Another, AIR 1981 SC 670 before the Apex Court, the question came for consideration that Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1971 would prevail to the slums area (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956 as the provisions in both the Acts were in direct conflict, wherein it was held that the Slums Act passed as far back as 1956 and the Public Premises Eviction Act was subsequent to it and would, therefore, prevail over the Slums Act. In the case of Sanwarmal Kejriwal vs. Vishwa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. AIR 1990 SC 1563 the similar question arose before the Supreme Court wherein it was held that on having inconsistency in the two enactments, the later enactment would prevail. Thereafter before the Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Ashoka Marketing Ltd. vs. Punjab National Bank, AIR 1991 SC 855 , the question came for consideration, whether Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1971, is having overriding effect to Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Apex Court, after considering the purpose to which the later enactment has been enacted and looking to the non-obstante clause in the later enactment, the Court Concluded that the later enactment would prevail over to the earlier. In the case of A.P. State Financial Corporation vs. Official Liquidator, AIR 2000 SC 2642 again the same question came for consideration before the Apex Court in the context of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 and the Companies Act, 1956, wherein the proviso to Section 529-A was as inserted by amending the Act in 1985 and right of the Corporation to sell property of defaulting industrial concern cannot be exercised in ignorance of pari passu charge in favour of workmen created by proviso to Section 529 (1) of the Companies Act, by later amendment. It was held that as per non-obstante clause later enactment in point of time would prevail. 20. Similarly, in the case of Allahabad Bank vs. Canara Bank and Another, 2000 (4) SCC 406 , the Apex Court held that in case of conflict between two special laws, the later one prevails applying the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant. In the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. Ramlal and Others, (2005) 2 SCC 638 and also in the case of Jay Engineering Works vs. Industry Facilitation Council and Another, AIR 2006 SC 3252 , the court held that ordinary rule of construction is that where there are two non-obstante clauses in different enactments, the later shall prevail, but it is equally well settled that ultimate conclusion would depend upon object and purpose of law under consideration to the context of statute. In view of the foregoing legal position enunciated by various pronouncement of the Apex Court it is clear that in two special enactments, non-obstante clauses have been specified them the later enactment would prevail to earlier, applying the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant. In addition thereto the object and purpose to which the enactments have been introduced by the legislature ought to be seen while interpreting the said issue. 21. In the said context if the object of the Preventions of Atrocities Act as well as the POCSO Act has been visualized then it is clear that the first Act was introduced with a view to prevent the commission of the atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by the members of unreserved category, to secure rehabilitation of the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and to prevent the offences and to try the cases of the victims by the Special Courts notified under the Act. The later Act has been enacted to protect the children of all communities including Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, OBC and unreserved category from offences of sexual assault, harassment, pornography and numerous safeguards have been specified in the Act with a view to prevent the exploitation of children and to protect them at various stages of investigation, enquiry and trial. Thus, it is clear that the interest of all the children, belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, other backward classes or unreserved category have been protected by introducing the said Act. Thus irrespective to race, caste and creed, the children of all the citizens were given protection by POCSO Act. Under both the Acts special Courts have been directed to be notified for the purpose of speedy trial, which are court of Sessions. However, in the matter of trial of the offences under both the enactments the case be tried before the Court of Sessions to which there is no conflict. 22. As discussed hereinabove, it is clear that a Court of Sessions under both the Acts is notified to try the offences, issuing separate notifications by the State Government after concurrence of the Chief Justice of the State. It is a trite law that the function of a Court of Sessions may be discharged by the Session Judge, Additional Session Judges or Assistant Session Judges appointed in this regard by the High Court. It is a trite law that the function of a Court of Sessions may be discharged by the Session Judge, Additional Session Judges or Assistant Session Judges appointed in this regard by the High Court. However, as per language employed in various notifications under the Preventions of Atrocities Act makes it clear that an Additional Sessions Judge posted in a Court of Sessions shall discharge the function of the Special Court under the Preventions of Atrocities Act would be a special Court from the date of assuming the charge of the office. On the other hand, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 28 of the POCSO Act a Court of Sessions has been notified as a Special Court, and the Session Judge or Additional Sessions Judges posted in the Sessions Division may discharge the function of special Court as "Children's Court." As per the language of the notification issued under the Preventions of Atrocities Act, a Sessions Judge, from the date of assuming the office may discharge the function of the said Court, while as per notification of POCSO Act any of the Sessions Judge, who may discharge the function of the court of Session may try the offences of POCSO Act. However, the special Judge Preventions of Atrocities is also a Court of Sessions who may try the offences of the Preventions of Atrocities Act as well as under POCSO Act. Thus, in such circumstances, by the aid of Section 9 of Cr.P.C. and giving harmonious interpretation to the Acts and Notifications issued the offence of the Preventions of Atrocities Act as well as POCSO Act and the IPC can be tried by a Court of Session notified under Preventions of Atrocities Act, and the trial may not required to be split up. 23. Now, to advert the other limb of the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that under POCSO Act challan ought to be filed before the notified Court, while under the Preventions of Atrocities Act the Special Court may try the cases after committal by the Court of Judicial Magistrate. First Class. In the present case, the challan has been filed before the Sessions Judge; therefore, it would affect the right of the applicant. In the said context Chapter-XIV of the Cr.P.C. is relevant. As per Section 193. First Class. In the present case, the challan has been filed before the Sessions Judge; therefore, it would affect the right of the applicant. In the said context Chapter-XIV of the Cr.P.C. is relevant. As per Section 193. it is clear that except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force 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 the Magistrate under the Code. In the present case, the offence of POCSO, Preventions of Atrocities Act and I.P.C. was found involved. However, the Challan was filed before the Court of Sessions, which cannot be said to be illegal and prejudicial to accused merely on asking by them. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in a recent case of Rnttirain and Others vs. State of M.P. (2012) 4 SCC 516 the Court has re-considered the issued regarding filing of the challan before the Sessions Court in a case of Preventions of Atrocities Act wherein the High Court directed vitiation of trial due to non-observance of Section 193 of the Code. But the Apex Court, considering the provisions of Chapter-XIV of Cr.P.C. applying the theory of prejudice held that until and unless the prejudice has been shown and established by the accused mere filing of the challan in the Court of Session would not amount to illegality and the trial would not vitiate for the said reason. 24. In view of the foregoing discussions and the interpretation of the provisions contained under the Preventions of Atrocities Act, POCSO Act as well as the notifications issued thereunder and also considering the provisions of the Cr.P.C. it is apparent that the offence registered under the POCSO Act shall be tried by the Court notified under Section 25 of the Commissions for Protection of chilled Rights Act, 2005, which shall be deemed to be the "Children's Court" as per the proviso to Section 28 of the POCSO Act. Simultaneously, if the offence registered under the provisions of the Preventions of Atrocities Act, then such offences shall be tried by the Special Court notified to try the said offence by Sessions Judge posted in the said Court from the date of assuming the office. Simultaneously, if the offence registered under the provisions of the Preventions of Atrocities Act, then such offences shall be tried by the Special Court notified to try the said offence by Sessions Judge posted in the said Court from the date of assuming the office. If the offences of IPC are also involved with respect to the offences of the respective special enactments then those offences shall also be tried by the said special Court notified under the respective enactments. It is to be further held that in a same crime number if the offences have been registered under the provisions of Atrocities Act and POCSO Act then, such offences shall be tried by a Court of Session notified under the Preventions of Atrocities Act with the aid of Section 9 of Cr. P.C. and as per the language of the notifications. In such circumstances, trial of the offences involved under both the Acts are not required to be split up. It is to be further made clear here that the POCSO Act being later enactment shall prevail to the provisions of the Preventions of Atrocities Act in case of any inconsistency. It is to be further held that mere filing of a challan before a Court of Session as appears in the present case would not vitiate the trial ipso facto in the light of the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rattiram (supra) without showing and establishing prejudice to the accused. In consequence to the discussion made herein above, the order impugned passed by the Sessions Judge, Ratlam is hereby upheld, dismissing the revision as meritless. The record of the Sessions Trial be sent back immediately to the Special Court who shall proceed and conclude the trial in accordance with law.