JUDGMENT : Debasish Kar Gupta, J. This is an application filed under section 397 read with section 401 Cr. P.C. assailing order No.6 dated September 7, 2016 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No.56 of 2016 by the learned Special Judge of the Special Court constituted under section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act of 1989') for Andaman and Nicobar Islands. 2. The facts of the case are set out in nutshell: - Initially, a proceeding bearing Spl. Case No.30 of 2016 arising out of Nancowry P.S. FIR No.06 o 2016 dated June 4, 2016 was initiated before the court of Additional Special Judge at Port Blair constituted under the provision of section 28 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said act of 2012) under section 4 of the said Act of 2012 read with sections 363/376(a)(i) IPC, against the petitioner. A prayer for adding sections 3(2)(v) of the said Act of 1989 was rejected by the learned Special Judge (POCSO) by an order dated June 22, 2016. Subsequently, a Crl. Misc. Case No.56 of 2016 was initiated by the learned Special Judge of the Special Court created under the said act of 1989 on the basis of an application dated June 24, 2016 filed by the Investigating Officer of Nancowry Police Station being Case Crime No.06 of 2016 dated June 4, 2016 initiated under section 4 of the said Act of 2012 read with sections 363/376(2)(i) IPC and section 3 of the said Act of 1989. By virtue of the impugned order the learned Judge came to a conclusion that in would be fair for the victim as also for the accused for holding the trial of the case having offence both under the said Act of 2012 and said Act of 1989 in the court specified for holding trial for the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 3. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties at length and I have given my anxious thoughts to the facts and circumstances of this case. It is not in dispute that the victim girl is below 12 years of age. It is also not in dispute that the victim girl belongs Scheduled Tribe community. 3. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties at length and I have given my anxious thoughts to the facts and circumstances of this case. It is not in dispute that the victim girl is below 12 years of age. It is also not in dispute that the victim girl belongs Scheduled Tribe community. It is also admitted fact that the two Special Courts have been constituted separately for trial of the commission of cognisable offences against the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe community and the children below the age of 18 years respectively. The only dispute which requires to be resolved in this case is to find out the appropriate Court, amongst the two Special Courts created under the provisions of the aforesaid to Acts, which is competent to deal with the case under reference. 4. The first settled principle of interpretation of the legislative entries is that they should be liberally interpreted, that none of the item in the list in to be read in a narrow or restricted sense and that each general word should be held to extend to ancillary or subsidiary matters which can fairly and reasonably be said to be comprehended in it. The second principle is that comparing entries must be read harmoniously. The proper way to avoid a conflict would be to read the entries together and to interpret the language of one by that of the other. Reference may be made to the decision of Godfray Phillips India Limited v. State of U.P, reported in (2005) 2 SCC 515 and the relevant portions of the above decision are quoted bellow:- 50. The first of such settled principles is that legislative entries should be liberally interpreted, that none of the items in the list is to be read in a narrow or restricted sense and that each general word should be held to extend to ancillary or subsidiary matters which can fairly and reasonably be said to be comprehended in it (United Provinces v. Atiqa Begam, Western India Theaters Ltd. v. Cantonment Board, SCR at P.69 and Elel Hotels & Investments Ltd. v. Union of India) … …. … … 3. The argument of Mr Salve is in fact that the breadth of any entry is curtailed by the second principle of construction. The second principle is that competing entries must be read harmoniously. … … 3. The argument of Mr Salve is in fact that the breadth of any entry is curtailed by the second principle of construction. The second principle is that competing entries must be read harmoniously. The proper way to avoid a conflict would be to read the entries together and to interpret the language of one by that of the other [Governor General in Council v. Province of Madras, FCR at pp. 191-92, State of Bombay v. Narothamdas Jethabhai Bar, Council of U.P. v. State of U.P, D.G. Gose & Co. (Agents) (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala, Federation of Hotel and Restaurant v. Union of India SCC at pp. 657, 667 - 68, State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries, SCC at p. 289 para 50 : Scale at p. 462 and Central Provinces and Berar Scale of Motor Sprit and Lubricants Taxation Act, 1938 Re, AIR at pp. 8, 40]. 5. In order to adjudicate the field in which the aforesaid Acts have been legislated by the Parliament at first the preamble of the said Act of 1989 is set out below:- "An Act to prevent the Commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the scheduled castes and the scheduled Tribes, to provide for special courts for the trial of such offences and for the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offences and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto." 6. The provisions of clause (v) of sub-section (2) of section 3, section 14 and section 20 of the said Act of 1989 are set out below:- "(v) Commits any offence under the Indian Penal code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine; … … …. …. 14. Special Court – For the purpose of providing for speedy trial, the State Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify for each district a court of session to be a Special Court to try the offence under this Act. …. … … … 20. …. 14. Special Court – For the purpose of providing for speedy trial, the State Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify for each district a court of session to be a Special Court to try the offence under this Act. …. … … … 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." 7. After considering the preamble of the said Act of 1989 read with the provisions of the aforesaid sections, I find that the above legislation was made by the Parliament under Entries 1 and 2, List-III, Seventh schedule of the Constitution of India. 8. For ascertaining the field of the legislation of the said Act of 2012, the preamble of the same is set out herein below:- "An Act to protect children from offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment and pornography and provide establishment of Special Courts for trial of such offences and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. WHEREAS clause (3) of Article 15 of the Constitution, inter alia, empowers the State to make special provisions for children; AND WHEREAS, the Government of India has acceded on the 11th December, 1992 to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, which has prescribed a set of standards to be followed by all State parties in securing the best interests of the child. AND WHEREAS it is necessary for the proper development of the child that his or her right to privacy and confidentiality be protected and respected by every person by all means and through all stages of a judicial process involving the child; AND WHEREAS it is imperative that the law operates in a manner that the best interest and well being of the child are regarded as being of paramount importance at every stage, to ensure the health physical, emotional, intellectual and social development of the child; AND WHEREAS the State parties to the Convention on the Rights of the Child are required to undertake all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent (a) The inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any un-lawful sexual activity; (b) The exploitative use of children in prostitution or other un-lawful sexual practices; (c) The exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and materials; AND WHEREAS sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children are heinous crimes and needed to be effectively addressed." 9. The provisions of sections 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 16 deal with the commission of offences against a victim girl in respect of the penetrative sexual assault, aggravated penetrative sexual assault, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, sexual harassment, use of child for pornographic purposes and abetment of an offence respectively. 10. Section 19 of the said Act of 2012 contains a non-obstante clause for providing information to the police agency as follows: - "19. Reporting of offence. – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), any person (including the child), who has apprehension that an offence under this Act is likely to be committed or has knowledge that such an offence has been committed, he shall provide such information to, - (a) the Special Juvenile Police Unit; or (b) the local police." 11. Section 28 provides for designation of the Special Court as follows: - "28. Designation of Special Courts. Section 28 provides for designation of the Special Court as follows: - "28. 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, designated for each district, a court of Session to be a Special Court to try the offence 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 offence under section 67 B of that Act in so far 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." (Emphasis supplied) 12. Needless to point out that according to the preamble of the said Act of 2012, the Government of India has acceded on December 11, 1992 to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, which had prescribed a set of standards to be followed by all State parties in securing the best interests of the child. The State parties to the Convention are required to undertake all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent: - (a) The inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any un-lawful sexual activity; (b) The exploitative use of children in prostitution or other un-lawful sexual practices; (c) The exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and materials. 13. Consequent thereupon, the Parliament thought it fit that sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children are heinous crimes and needed to be effectively addressed. 14. 13. Consequent thereupon, the Parliament thought it fit that sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children are heinous crimes and needed to be effectively addressed. 14. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the above Act of 2012 has been legislated under Entry 13, List-I, Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. 15. At this juncture, it is profitable to note of the provisions of Constitution of India, Entry 13 List-I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India which is as follows: "13. Participation in international conference, associations and other bodies and implementing of decisions made thereat." 16. It is also necessary to take into consideration of provisions of Article 253 of the Constitution of India which is as follows:- "253. Legislation for giving effect to international agreements. – Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, Parliament has power to make any law for the whole or any part of the territory of India for implementing any treaty, agreement or convention with any other country or countries or any decision made at any international conference, association or other body." 17. Therefore, taking into consideration the above provisions of the Constitution of India, I am of the opinion that Entry 13 List-I, Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India as also the non-obstante clause of Article 253 of the Constitution of India empowers the Parliament of our country to invate any legislation made under any other Entry of any List of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. 18. The aforesaid provisions of the Constitution of India were taken into consideration by the Apex Court while deciding the overriding effect of an Act over the other in S. Jagannath v. Union of India, reported in (1997) 2 SCC 87 and the relevant portion of the above decision is quoted bellow:- "Under para 2 of the CRZ Notification, the activities listed thereunder are declared as prohibited activities. Various State Governments have enacted costal aquaculture legislations regulation the industries set up in the coastal areas. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 has been enacted under Entry 13 of list I Schedule VII of the Constitution of India. Various State Governments have enacted costal aquaculture legislations regulation the industries set up in the coastal areas. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 has been enacted under Entry 13 of list I Schedule VII of the Constitution of India. The preamble to the Act clearly states that it was enacted to implement the decisions taken at the United Nations' conference on the Human Environment held at Stockholm in June 1972, Parliament has enacted the Act under Entry 13 of List I Schedule VII read with Article 253 of the Constitution of India. The CRZ notification having been issued under the Act shall have overriding effect and shall prevail over the law made by the legislatures of the States. 19. Though two Acts legislated by the Parliament and the State Legislature respectively were under consideration in the above decision, the ratio laid down in the above decision is applicable in the instant case with its all rigors taking into consideration the provisions of Article 253 of the constitution of India as also relevant provisions of the said Act of 2012 as discussed hereunder :- 20. It is necessary to point out that in view of the non-obstante clause of Article 253 of the Constitution of India so far as the legislation made in the field of Entry 13, List-I, Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, the non-obstante clause the provisions of section 20 of the said Act of 1989 does not stand in the way of overriding effect of the said Act of 2012 in a case relating to a victim girl belong the age of 18 years belonging to Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes community. 21. It is noteworthy that the said Act of 2012 is the later Act specifically made to protect children from offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment and pornography promulgated with the provisions, inter alia, of section 28 for designation of Special Courts. Under sub-section (2) of section 28 of the said Act of 2012 while trying an offence under the said Act of 2012, a Special Court shall also try an offence other than the offence referred to in subsection (1) of section 28 of the said Act of 2012, which the accused may, under Cr. P.C. be charged at the same trial. 22. P.C. be charged at the same trial. 22. Moreover, according to the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 19 of the said Act of 2012, notwithstanding anything contained in the Cr. P.C., any person (including the child) who has apprehension that an offence under this Act is likely to be committed or has knowledge that such an offence has been committed, he shall provide such information to :- (a) the Special Juvenile Police Unit; or (b) the local police. 23. Taking into the offending sections of the said Act of 2012, I have no hesitation to hold that the above legislation was made by the Parliament in discharge of the international obligations to implement the decision taken on December 11, 1992 in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, which had prescribed a set of standards to be followed by all State parties in securing the best interest of the child, having overriding effect on the said Act, 1989. 24. In view of the discussions and observations made herein above, the trial with regard to commission of offence against the victim girl who is below the age of 12 at the material point of time belonging to the Scheduled Tribe Community should be conducted under the provisions of section 28 of the said Act of 2012 and under the provisions of the said Act of 1989 before the Special Court designated to try the offences under the said Act of 2012 for the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. 25. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. This application stands disposed of. Application is allowed.