JUDGMENT : P.P. BHATT, J. 1. Present Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, in Atrocity Case No. 13 of 1999 dated 31.08.2001, whereby the appellant is convicted for the offences under Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment and to pay fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also convicted and sentenced the appellant to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment, for the offence under Section 506(2) of Indian Penal Code. 2. Short facts of the prosecution case are as under: On 08.12.1998, the complainant – Dalabhai Siskabhai Nisrata filed FIR against the present appellant alleging that the President of society being Subhashpark Society, told the complainant to clean the society. After cleaning the society, the complainant thrown the garbage in the plot of the society. On the very day of incident at about 10:00 a.m., the accused abused the complainant about his caste for throwing the garbage in the plot. Therefore, the complainant said that he is Adivasi Bhil and as per the instruction of the President of the society, he has thrown the garbage in the plot. Therefore, the accused got exited and abused the caste of the complainant. Thereafter, the accused beaten the complainant and threatened to kill the complainant. Therefore, the complainant had filed complaint before City Police Station, Vadodara, against the appellant. But the Police Station has not carried out investigation. Therefore, the complainant filed private complaint before the District and Sessions Court. The investigating was carried by the Dy. S.P., S.C.S.T. Cell, Vadodara and thereafter, the accused was arrested. The prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses and led documentary evidence to prove the case against the accused. But the Police Station has not carried out investigation. Therefore, the complainant filed private complaint before the District and Sessions Court. The investigating was carried by the Dy. S.P., S.C.S.T. Cell, Vadodara and thereafter, the accused was arrested. The prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses and led documentary evidence to prove the case against the accused. At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence and appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant - accused of the charges levelled against the him as stated above vide judgment and order dated 31.08.2001. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. S.P. Hasurkar for the appellant and learned APP Mr. K.L. Pandya for the respondent-State. 4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant states that the learned Court below has not properly appreciated the documentary as well as oral evidence and the fact that originally quarrel was with President of the society and not with the appellant. Learned advocate further states that the regular work of the complainant was to assist in masonry work, however, on the day of incident, he was working as a sweeper. It is submitted by the learned advocate that the complaint was filed belatedly and the complainant has not explained the delay in filing the complaint. It is also submitted that the since the offence pertains to the Atrocity Act, such complaint is required to be investigated by the officer not below the rank of Dy. S.P. under the Rule 7 of the Atrocity Act. 5. Learned advocate submits that in the instant case, cognizance was taken by the learned Sessions Judge, is not permissible under the law. The alleged offence is of Atrocity Act and therefore, the trial to be conducted by the Special Court only. In support of his submissions, learned advocate places reliance upon the case of Gangula Ashok vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2000 (1) SCR 468 and more particularly, paras 2, 6, 10, 11, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24 and 25 which are quoted as under: “2. Can a "special court" which is envisaged in Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short the Act) take cognizance of any offence without the case being committed to that court? Can a "special court" which is envisaged in Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short the Act) take cognizance of any offence without the case being committed to that court? If it cannot, then appellants cannot raise any grievance at this stage regarding framing of a charge against them as they would get an opportunity for it later. 6. We have to consider whether the Special Judge could take cognizance of the offence straightway without the case being committed to him. If the Special Court is a Court of Session the interdict contained in Section 193 of the Code of criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') would stand in the way. It reads thus: "193. Cognizance of offences by Courts of Session - 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 a Magistrate under this Code." 10. Section 193 of the Code has to be understood in the aforesaid backdrop. The section imposes an interdict on all Courts of Session against taking cognizance of any offence as a court of original jurisdiction. It can take cognizance only if "the case has been committed to it by a magistrate" as provided in the Code Two segments have been indicated in Section 193 as exceptions to the aforesaid interdict. One is, when the Code itself has provided differently in express language regarding taking of cognizance, and the second is when any other law has provided differently in express language regarding taking cognizance of offences under such law. The word "expressly" which is employed in Section 193 denoting to those exceptions is indicative of the legislative mandate that a Court of Session can depart from the interdict contained in the section only if it is provided differently in clear and unambiguous terms. In other words, unless it is positively and specifically provided differently no Court of Session can take cognizance of any offence directly, without the case being committed to it by a magistrate. 11. In other words, unless it is positively and specifically provided differently no Court of Session can take cognizance of any offence directly, without the case being committed to it by a magistrate. 11. Neither in the Code nor in the Act there is any provision whatsoever, not even by implication, that the specified Court of Session (Special Court) can take cognizance of the offence under the Act as a court of original jurisdiction without the case being committed to it by a magistrate. If that be so, there is no reason to think that the charge-sheet or a complaint can straightway be filed before such Special Court for offences under the Act. It can be discerned from the hierarchical settings of criminal courts that the Court of Session is given a superior and special status. Hence we think that the legislature would have thoughtfully relieved the Court of Session from the work of performing all the preliminary formalities which magistrates have to do until the case is committed to the Court of session. 19. When the correctness of the above decision was later doubted by the same High Court the question was referred to a larger beach. In Hareendran vs. Sarada, (1996) 1 ALT Crl 162 : (1995) 1 KLT 23 a Full Beach of that High Court affirmed the view of the Division Bench aforesaid. The Full Bench put forward mainly two reasons for adopting the said interpretation. First is that Section 20 of the Act stipulated that provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. As the section gives overriding effect for the provisions of the Act and it was enacted with a view to prevent commission of offence of atrocities against the member of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the Full Bench felt that "it is rather difficult for us to hold that the committal proceedings is indispensable as a prelude to the case being tried by the Special Court." Second is that, there is nothing in the Act to indicate that the Special Court would get jurisdiction only on a committal order made by the magistrate. 20. 20. The very approach of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court seems to be that there should be specific indication in the Act that the Special Court gets jurisdiction to try the offence only on a committal order, and in the absence of such specific indication the Special Court must have the right to take cognizance of the offence as though it is a court of original jurisdiction. We have pointed out above that unless there is express provision to the contrary in any other law the interdict contained in Section 193 of the Code cannot be circumvented. Hence the reasoning of the Full Bench in Hareendran vs. Sarada (supra) is apparently fallacious. 21. In fact all the other High Courts which dealt with this question (the decisions of which were cited supra) have dissented from the aforesaid view of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court, after adverting to the reasons advanced by the Full Bench. A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court after referring to the Full bench decision in Hareendran vs. Sarada (supra) made the following observations in Referring Officer Rep. by State of A.P. vs. Shekar Nair, (1999) 3 ALT 533 : "We find it difficult to agree with the reasoning of the Kerala High Court in the two decisions referred to above. As already observed by us, in the absence of a particular procedure prescribed by the said Act as regards the mode of taking cognizance, enquiry or trial, the procedure under the Code will have to be applied by reason of Section 4(2) of the Code as clarified by the Supreme Court in the case of Directorate of Enforcement (AIR (1994) SC 1775). There is no provision in the Act which excludes the application of Section 193, Cr. P.C. The mere fact that no procedure is prescribed or specified under the Special Act does not mean that the Special Act dispenses with the procedure for committal in the Case triable by Court of Sessions and that the Special Court gets original jurisdiction in the matter of initiations, enquiry or trial. There is no good reason why the procedural provisions of Code relating to power and mode of taking cognizance including Section 193 should not be applied to the Special Court." 22. There is no good reason why the procedural provisions of Code relating to power and mode of taking cognizance including Section 193 should not be applied to the Special Court." 22. We are of the considered opinion that the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has stated the legal position correctly in the above decision. 24. It is contextually relevant to notice that Special Courts created under certain other enactments have been specially empowered to take cognizance of the offence without the accused being committed to it for trial, (e.g. Section 36-A(l)(d) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act). It is significant that there is no similar provision in the Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 25. We therefore, hold that the legal position stated in the decisions of the Kerala High Court in Re Director General prosecutions and Hareendran vs. Sarada, is not in accordance with law. We approve the interpretation adopted by the other High Courts in the decisions referred to above as the correct legal position.” 6. Learned advocate for the appellant submits that in view of the settled legal proposition set out in the aforesaid judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the impugned judgment and order may be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned APP appearing for the State has strongly opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Learned APP prays to confirm the impugned judgment and order by dismissing the appeal. 8. Regard being had to the above submissions in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court requires to consider, whether Special Court could take cognizance of the offence straightway without the case being committed to him. In this context, first of all Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is required to be seen. It reads thus: Section 193: Cognizance of offences by Courts of Session – 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 a Magistrate under this Code.” 9. Above referred Section imposes an interdict on all Courts of Sessions against taking cognizance of any offence as Court of Original Jurisdiction. It can take cognizance only if “the case has been committed to it by Magistrate” as provided in the Code. Two segments have been indicated in Section 193 as exception to the aforesaid interdict. One is when the Code itself has provided differently in express language regarding taking of cognizance, and the second is when any other law has provided differently in express language regarding taking cognizance of offence under such law. The word “expressly” which is employed in Section 193 denoting to those exception is indicative of the legislative mandate that a Court of Session can depart from the interdict contained in the section only if it is provided differently in clear and unambiguous terms. In other words unless it is positively and specifically provided differently no Court of Sessions can take cognizance of any offence directly, without the case being committed to it by a Magistrate. 10. In the instant case, it appears that cognizance is directly taken by the Special Court without case being committed to it by the Magistrate in accordance with the provisions of the Code. It is also pertinent to note here that in this case, on first occasion, the police has not taken any steps regarding the complaint filed by the complainant and therefore, the complainant filed the private complaint before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court has conducted the trial without taking into consideration the provisions of the Act and convicted and sentenced the appellant. 11. This Court has minutely perused the decision relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellant. In view of the settled legal proposition set out in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence requires to be quashed and set aside. 12. Accordingly, present appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, in Atrocity Case No. 13 of 1999 dated 31.08.2001 is quashed and set aside. The appellant is on bail, his bail bond stands cancelled. He is not required to be surrendered to custody, except he requires so in any other case. Fine amount be refunded to the appellant. Registry to return R&P to the concerned trial Court. Appeal allowed.