ORDER : 1. The respondents are the accused in Crime No. 2 of 2017 of Chetlat Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 4, 6, 8 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short “the POCSO Act”) Section 376D read with Section 34 IPC. 2. The prosecution allegation is that the respondents committed penetrative sexual assault on the daughter of the de facto complainant aged 16 years at the house of the victim on so many occasions. The respondents were subsequently arrested. They were released on bail by the Assistant Sessions Court, Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Amini Island, as per Annexure - VIII order dated 21-3-2017 in Crl.M.P. No. 19/2017. 3. The petitioner filed this Crl. M.C. praying for cancellation of bail granted to the respondents as per Annexure -VIII order. 4. Heard. 5. It has been argued by the learned Standing Counsel for the Union Territory of Lakshadweep that the Assistant Sessions Court had no jurisdiction to grant bail to a person accused of having committed the offences under the POCSO Act, and in the said circumstances, Annexure-VIII order passed by the Assistant Sessions court cannot be sustained. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has argued that the Assistant Sessions Court had ample jurisdiction to grant bail to a person accused of having committed the offence under the POCSO Act, in view of Annexure - VI official memorandum dated 14-3-2017 which authorized the Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amini to deal with the POCSO matters during the absence of the Special Judge, Kavarathi under Section 10 (3) Cr.P.C. and in the said circumstances, Annexure-VIII order was perfectly justified. 7. Section 28 of the POCSO Act provides for designation of Special Courts for the trial of offences under the POCSO Act. For the sake of convenience, Section 28 of the POCSO Act is extracted hereunder:- “Designation of Special Courts - (1) For the purpose 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 is notified as a children's Court under the Commissions for protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (4 of 2006) 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. (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 facilitates abuse of children online”. 8. Section 28 of the POCSO Act provides for designation of a Court of Session to be a special court in each district to try the offences under the POCSO Act. The proviso to Section 28 provides that if a Court of Session is notified as a Children's Court under the Commission of Protection of Child Rights Act or if a Special Court is 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 to try the offences under the POCSO Act. Section 28 contemplates only one Special Court in every district. Therefore, if a Court of Session is notified to be a special court under Section 28 of the POCSO Act, that Court alone has jurisdiction to try the offences under the POCSO Act. 9. Section 32 (1) of the Act provides that the State Government shall, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint a Special Public Prosecutor for every Special Court for conducting cases under the provisions of POCSO Act. Therefore, the Special Public Prosecutor appointed under Section 32(1) of the POCSO Act alone shall have the right to conduct prosecution under the POCSO Act. At this juncture, it is relevant to read Section 4 of the Code which is extracted hereunder:- “4. Therefore, the Special Public Prosecutor appointed under Section 32(1) of the POCSO Act alone shall have the right to conduct prosecution under the POCSO Act. At this juncture, it is relevant to read Section 4 of the Code which is extracted hereunder:- “4. Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws :- (1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained. (2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and other wise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences”. 10. Section 33 (1) provides that a special court may take cognizance of any offence, without the accused being committed to it for trial, upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence, or upon a police report of such facts. It is clear from Section 33(1) of the POCSO Act that the Special Court is having the original jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under the POCSO Act. 11. A reading of Section 33 (1) of POCSO Act in conjuncture with Section 4 (2) of the Code would make it clear that the special court alone can deal with the offences under the POCSO Act. Therefore, the Special Court alone has the power to grant bail to a person accused of having committed the offences under the POCSO Act. 12. Section 10 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the Sessions Judge may make provision for the disposal of any urgent application in the event of his absence or inability to act, by an Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge, or, if there be no Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and every such Judge or Magistrate shall be deemed to have jurisdiction to deal with any such application. 13. It is very much clear from a bare reading of Section 10 (3) of the Code that the power for authorisation is vested by the said Section only with the Sessions Judge and not with the Special Judge. 13. It is very much clear from a bare reading of Section 10 (3) of the Code that the power for authorisation is vested by the said Section only with the Sessions Judge and not with the Special Judge. In this case, the Special Judge as per Annexure - VI authorized the Sub Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amini to deal with the POCSO matters during the absence of the Special Judge, Kavarathy under Section 10 (3) of the Code. Section 10 (3) of the Code confers power on the Sessions Judge and not on the Special Judge. It is true that the Sessions Judge, Kavarathy is also a Special Judge. That does not mean that the Special Judge gets jurisdiction under Section 10 (3) of the Code. There can be no doubt that no court can be authorised to deal with the POCSO matters and no court can act as a special court without any notification as provided under Section 28 of the POCSO Act. In view of the above reason, the direction issued under Annexure-VI could not confer power on the Assistant Sessions Judge, Amini to act as a Special Court for any purpose. 14. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge passed Annexure-VIII Order on the strength of Annexure -VI. Since the learned Special Judge, Kavarathi had no power to issue any such direction, the conferring of power on the Assistant Sessions Judge, Amini, to deal with the matters under the POCSO Act, cannot be said to be legal and correct. Consequently, the Assistant Sessions Judge, Amini had no jurisdiction at all to deal with the matters under the POCSO Act. In view of the above reason, the bail granted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge as per Annexure-VIII Order to the respondents herein cannot be sustained, and consequently, I set aside the same. However, the present situation has arisen not due to any fault of the respondents herein. Therefore, the respondents herein shall be at liberty to approach the Special Court concerned and apply for regular bail. If the respondents surrender before the regular court within 15 days of receipt of this order and apply for regular bail, the respondents shall be granted regular bail by the Special Court on such terms and conditions as the Special Court may deem fit and proper. In the result, this Crl. M.C. stands allowed.