ORDER : Learned Sessions Judge, Burhanpur has referred the matter with a view to be considered in suo motu revision and be directed accordingly. 2. The facts of the case are that a Criminal Case No. 2145/2011 (State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Jitendra) arising out of FIR 198/2012 Police Station Nepanagar, Distt. Burhanpur under sections 354, 342, 377 of Indian Penal Code was registered in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Burhanpur. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class vide order dated 16-7-2011 committed the case to the Court of Sessions which was registered as Sessions Trial No. 32/2011. The then learned Sessions Judge, Burhanpur made over the case to the First Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur. The trial commenced in that Court and the case was fixed for final arguments on 1-2-2012 and then for judgment on 6-2-2012. On the date of judgment i.e. 6-2-2012, learned I Additional Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the case is triable by Special Court (Designated) established under “Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005” and returned back the case to the Sessions Judge for further proceeding observing that the learned Sessions Judge, being the designated Court, had jurisdiction to try the offences pertaining to children as described in “Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005”. 3. The Sessions Judge remanded the case to the Judicial Magistrate First Class with a direction that the case be committed as per notification of the government dated 17-7-2001 by which Sessions Court has been designated as “Children’s Court” by the State Government with the consent of High Court. Thereafter, the Judicial Magistrate First Class vide order dated 21-2-2012 again committed the case to Sessions Court and the case was registered as Special Case No. l4/2012. The detailed fact of the case was brought to the knowledge of Sessions Judge (Designated Court) on 25-2-2012 at the stage of arguments for framing of charge. The learned Sessions Judge (designated), Burhanpur felt that trial was conducted by First Additional Sessions Judge who has the same jurisdiction as that of Sessions Judge and Addl. Sessions Judge could also be a designated Court under “Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005” and since both Sessions Judge and Addl. Sessions Judge have coordinate jurisdiction, de novo trial will give rise to various complications, adversely affecting the merits of the case. Sessions Judge could also be a designated Court under “Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005” and since both Sessions Judge and Addl. Sessions Judge have coordinate jurisdiction, de novo trial will give rise to various complications, adversely affecting the merits of the case. At this stage, the matter has been referred by the learned Sessions Judge to treat this as a suo motu revision and guide. 4. The questions referred for consideration can be summed up as follows : (i) Whether there was need to remand back the case to commit it again? To find an answer the following points are also felt to be considered: (ii) Whether the trial before the Additional Sessions Judge caused prejudice to the accused and, therefore, failure of justice. (iii) Whether the trial by the Additional Sessions Judge in place of the designated Court is illegal? (iv) Whether a de novo trial in such circumstances is mandatory? 5. If the Sessions Judge had taken cognizance and made over the case, the Additional Sessions Judge who has concluded the case and felt that the case ought to have been tried by Designated Court and the provisions mandate that the committal proceeding was wrong and the Magistrate is required to pass a fresh order for committal then, definitely, in absence of first order of committal as recalled, there being a new committal order, there has to be a de novo trial. However, at this point of time, it is necessary to answer whether there was need for recalling of order and re-commital by Magistrate. 6. This question was set at rest in Criminal Reference No. 1/2012 [decided on 7-8-2012 by High Court of M.P., reported in 2012(2) MPLJ (Cri) 726] that a Special Court under Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 is essentially a Court of Session and it can take cognizance of the offence, when the case is committed to it by the Magistrate. 7. It has also been held that each and every offence in which a “child” happens to be a complainant or a victim shall not necessarily be deemed to be an offence triable under the Act, unless in respect of it a proceeding has been initiated by concerned Government or Authority on the recommendation of Commission constituted under the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005. Only those kind of cases in respect of which the Commission finds “violation of child rights of a serious nature” or “contravention of provision of any law for the time being in force” and recommends to the concerned Government or Authority for initiation of the proceedings for prosecution, shall be deemed to be cognizable and triable by the specified Children’s Court constituted under section 25 of the Act. In all other cases, ordinary procedure provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be followed. 8. The present case was not initiated on the recommendation of Commission constituted under Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 therefore technically the case was not necessarily to be tried by designated Court. For offences not registered on the recommendations of Commission, a Sessions Court or a Court having co-ordinate jurisdiction (e.g. Additional Sessions Judge) would be competent Court to try the case. 9. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Court of Sessions for every Sessions Division is established by the State Government which has to be presided over by the Sessions Judge. Sub-section (3) of section 9 of Criminal Procedure Code enables the High Court to appoint Additional Sessions Judge and Assistant Sessions Judge to exercise jurisdiction of Court of Sessions. This is a provision for appointment of Judges, in addition to Sessions Judge in the Sessions Division, to man the work of Court of Sessions. The Sessions Judge has power to transfer the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judge. Therefore, it is clear that the Sessions Judge presides over the Sessions Division and Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges merely exercise jurisdiction in that Sessions Division. 10. Sections 193 and 194, Criminal Procedure Code read together provide that no Court of Sessions shall take cognizance of offence as Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by the Magistrate. It also provides that Additional Sessions Judge or Assistant Sessions Judge shall try such cases as the Sessions Judge of the division, may by general or special order make over to him for trial. Therefore, Additional Sessions Judge or Assistant Sessions Judge is empowered to try a case, only when the case has been made over by the Sessions Judge. This has been reiterated in AIR 2008 SC 1213 , S. K. Sinha Chief Information Officer vs. Videocon International. Therefore, Additional Sessions Judge or Assistant Sessions Judge is empowered to try a case, only when the case has been made over by the Sessions Judge. This has been reiterated in AIR 2008 SC 1213 , S. K. Sinha Chief Information Officer vs. Videocon International. It has been further made clear that only Sessions Judge has original jurisdiction to take cognizance under section 193, Criminal Procedure Code which does not include Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges. Additional Sessions Judges exercise concurrent jurisdiction to that of Sessions Judge only when the case is made over to them by the Sessions Judge under section 194 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. The Apex Court on various occasions has emphasized that the cognizance taken by Sessions Court is a cognizance of offence and not of offender [See : (1979) 1 SCC 345 , Joginder Singh vs. State of Bengal, (1995) 6 SCC 142 , Anil Sharan vs. State of Bihar, (2006) 7 SCC 296 , Popular Muthiah vs. State]. Therefore, once Cognizance has been taken by the. Sessions Court, there is no need to send back the case to the Magistrate for recalling his earlier order of committal and ask him to recommit. Hon’ble the Apex Court in Dinesh Dalmia vs. CBI, (2007) 8 SCC 770 has rejected the plea of recall of cognizance by Magistrate even when the investigation was open, once order for taking cognizance exists. 12. In AIR 1996 SCC 905, Abdul Mannan vs. State of Bangalore, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held that section 9, sub-section (3) of Criminal Procedure Code includes Additional Sessions Judges within the meaning of Sessions Judge. Once the case has been committed to Sessions Court and the Court has taken cognizance and the Sessions Court is of the opinion that the matter is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions which necessarily includes Additional Sessions Judge then the evidence recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge will have the same effect as if it has been recorded by the Sessions Judge. In this factual position, the ratio of AIR 2005 SC 4161 , Satyajit Banerjee and ors. vs. State of Bengal is important wherein the Hon’ble the Apex Court considering the Best Bakery Case, AIR 2004 SC 3114 being a case of extraordinary circumstances felt that, it cannot be applied to all cases against the established principles of criminal jurisprudence. In this factual position, the ratio of AIR 2005 SC 4161 , Satyajit Banerjee and ors. vs. State of Bengal is important wherein the Hon’ble the Apex Court considering the Best Bakery Case, AIR 2004 SC 3114 being a case of extraordinary circumstances felt that, it cannot be applied to all cases against the established principles of criminal jurisprudence. Direction of retrial should not be made in all or every case. It is clear that even if a retrial is directed, the evidence already recorded at the initial trial cannot be erased or wiped out from the record of the case. The Trial Judge has to decide the case on the basis of evidence already on record and the additional evidence which could be recorded for retrial if there is a direction for retrial. The Trial Judge shall take a decision on the basis of entire evidence on record. 13. Since the Additional Sessions Judge is competent to exercise jurisdiction of Sessions Court, therefore he is competent to try a case made over for consideration even though it is triable by some designated Court. A trial by Additional Sessions Judge in such a situation where otherwise it has the jurisdiction is not illegal but could be an irregularity or error which may attract section 465, Criminal Procedure Code. This has been upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ratiram and ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2012) 4 SCC 516 where it has been enunciated that trial would only be vitiated if there is failure of justice, 14. In the present case, the accused has faced the complete trial before the Additional Sessions Judge till the date of judgment neither the accused nor the prosecution has raised any objection as to the jurisdiction of the Court or failure of justice on the ground of incorrect forum. In State of M.P. vs. Bhoorajee and ors. reported as (2001) 7 SCC 679 , Hon’ble the Supreme Court reversed order of the High Court order directing trial de novo by initiating committal proceedings. It was held that it must be shown that there is failure of justice on account of irregularity in trial proceedings. The competence of a Court will remain unaffected by procedural lapse. 15. reported as (2001) 7 SCC 679 , Hon’ble the Supreme Court reversed order of the High Court order directing trial de novo by initiating committal proceedings. It was held that it must be shown that there is failure of justice on account of irregularity in trial proceedings. The competence of a Court will remain unaffected by procedural lapse. 15. In view of the fact that the Sessions Judge had already taken cognizance of the case, the matter of remanding back and re-committal entails with it a de novo trial and if the remanding back and re-committal is considered to be correct, de-novo trial will have to take place which will be against the concept of taking cognizance under section 193 and 194 of Criminal Procedure Code. The Additional Sessions Judge has retransmitted the case to Sessions Judge then, being the designated Court the Sessions Judge could have tried the matter instead of remanding back the case for re-committal. 16. There is an error caused in remanding the case back to Magistrate and then asking for re-committal. The simple way could have been to take up the case as designated Court and accepting the evidence taken by the Additional Sessions Judge to be valid and proceed with the case. At the most, the designated Court/Sessions Court could have asked the accused for any other evidence. Had he wished for additional evidence that could have been taken for consideration, while deciding the case. 17. Thus, the matter is answered accordingly as under :— (i) There was no need to remand back the case and ask for a re-committal order. (ii) The trial before Additional Sessions Judge was a fair trial and has not caused prejudice to the accused and there was no failure of justice. (iii) If at all, there was a procedural lapse, when the trial being conducted before Additional Sessions Judge in place of the designated Court, that is merely an irregularity and covered under section 465 of Criminal Procedure Code. (iv) At the most that could have been done is, to give the accused an opportunity to redress grievance, if any. There is no need to go for a de novo trial. 18. Before parting with the order, this Court appreciates the assistance provided by Shri Pankaj Gour, Registrar Judicial in tracing out the citations on this point. 19. (iv) At the most that could have been done is, to give the accused an opportunity to redress grievance, if any. There is no need to go for a de novo trial. 18. Before parting with the order, this Court appreciates the assistance provided by Shri Pankaj Gour, Registrar Judicial in tracing out the citations on this point. 19. The Registrar General is directed to place the matter before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for seeking his permission to circulate copy of this order to all Session Judges and Additional Sessions Judges, for future reference and guidance.