ORDER : 1. The instant revision is directed against the judgment dated 13.05.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pali in Appeal No.64/2014 (4/2014) whereby, the appellate court, accepted the appeal preferred by the respondent Sazid Khan against the judgment dated 12.12.2013 passed by the learned CJM, Pali in Criminal Case No.254/2003. The learned CJM had convicted the respondent Sajid Khan for offences under Section 452, 323 and 326 and had awarded various terms of imprisonment to him. The appellate court accepted the appeal and acquitted the respondent from all the charges. 2. Initially the complainant preferred a revision against the impugned judgment but thereafter, moved an application for treating the revision to be an appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as “the SC/ST Act”) because the judgment under challenge was passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Pali. 3. I have heard and considered the arguments advanced by Shri Rakesh Arora learned counsel representing the complainant petitioner on the application and have gone through the amendments brought around in the SC/ST Act particularly Section 14A of the SC/ST Act which reads as below:- “14A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, an appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and on law. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an appeal shall lie to the High Court against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court granting or refusing bail. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of the judgment, sentence or order appealed from: Provided that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of ninety days: Provided further that no appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of the period of one hundred and eighty days. (4) Every appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of admission of the appeal.” 4. Though on a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it would appear that any order passed by the Special Court or an Exclusive Special Court would be appealable under Section 14A of the Act but it has to be considered whether the appeal would lie even if the order comes to be passed by a Special Judge in the capacity of an Additional Sessions Judge and the case does not involve the offence under the SC/ST Act. Ex-facie, the provisions of the SC/ST Act and the amendments brought around by amending Act No.1/2016 were introduced to govern cases registered for the offences under the SC/ST Act. Courts designated under the SC/ST Act are presided over either by a Sessions Judge or the Additional Sessions Judge, as the case may be. The Presiding Officers of these courts are appointed to be Special Judges or Special Executive Judges, as the case may be, with the issuance of a notification by the State Government with concurrence of Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the High Court or by notification in the official gazette. Thus, essentially the Sessions Judge or the Additional Sessions Judge, as the case may be, acts as Presiding Officer of Special Court for trying the offences under the SC/ST Act. At the same time, the Special Judge who is essentially an officer in the Higher Judicial Services may also be assigned duties of deciding cases under other laws as well. Obviously thus, when the Special Judge decides cases in which offence under the SC/ST Act is not involved, he would simply be acting as a Sessions Court or an Additional Sessions Court and hence, procedure of the SC/ST Act would not apply to such cases and they would continue to be governed by general laws i.e. the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law, as the case may be. 5. 5. Since the order under challenge was passed by the learned Special Judge while deciding a regular criminal appeal in the capacity of a Sessions Judge in a case involving offences under the Indian Penal Code only, obviously such order cannot be construed to be an order passed under any provision of the SC/ST Act so as to require filing of an appeal under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act for challenging the same. 6. Consequently, the instant application preferred by Shri Arora to treat the revision to be an appeal under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act is rejected. 7. However, as a revision does not lie against the judgment of acquittal as held by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramvati vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal No.61/2017) decided on 03.03.2017, Shri Arora may move an application to treat the revision to be an application for grant of leave to file appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., if so advised.