JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Y.P. Gupta, learned CGC for the petitioner and Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned P.P. for the State espondent. 2. This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 401 read with section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, assailing the order dated 01/04/2021 passed by learned Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Dimapur, Nagaland, rejecting the application dated 01/03/2021 filed by the Deputy Inspector General, Headquarters 6 Sector Assam Rifles to handover Number G/5012761M Riflemen (General Duty) Kush Kumar of 41 Assam Rifles (hereafter called the accused) who was apprehend by the Police in connection with Dimapur Women P.S Case No.03/2021 (corresponding to G.R Case No. 115/2021) under section 354 IPC r/w section 10 POCSO Act. 3. The case in brief is that on 26/02/2021, the accused who was on duty for the Road Opening Party (ROP) near Govt. Middle School Jharnapani, Ghashpani, Dimapur molested the victim, a student of Class-VII of the Govt. Middle School Jharnapani in the school compound by taking the photograph of the victim and firmly pressing the breast of the victim child with sexual intent. 4. The victim on 26/02/2021 accordingly filed the complaint with the Officer-in-Charge, Women Police Cell Dimapur, Nagaland and consequent to which the Case No. 03/2021 was registered against the accused under section 354 IPC r/w section 10 POCSO Act. The case has been charge-sheeted and is pending trial before the Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Dimapur, Nagaland. The accused is presently on bail on medical ground. 5. When the case was thus situated, the Deputy Inspector General, Headquarter 6 Sector Assam Rifles submitted the petition dated 01/03/2021 to the learned Special Judge, POCSO, to handover the accused to the Commanding Officer, 41 Assam Rifles, for trial of the accused by the Assam Rifles Court in accordance with law. 6. The learned Special Judge however by the order dated 01/04/2021 rejected the petition on the ground that the Assam Rifles Court is an ordinary criminal court not vested with the Special powers to try the offences under the POCSO Act. 7. Mr. 6. The learned Special Judge however by the order dated 01/04/2021 rejected the petition on the ground that the Assam Rifles Court is an ordinary criminal court not vested with the Special powers to try the offences under the POCSO Act. 7. Mr. Y.P. Gupta, learned CGC refers to section 55, 56 and 102 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred as Act, 2006) as well as to section 475 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and submits that a conjoint reading of the said provisions of law makes it clear that since the Assam Rifles authorities had exercised their option to try the accused, it is the General Assam Rifles Court (GARC) constituted under section 86 of the Act, 2006 which has the competence and the jurisdiction to try the case against the accused who has been charged for civil offences under section 356 IPC and section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The learned CGC accordingly submits that the order dated 01/04/2021 passed by the learned Special Court rejecting the petition of the Assam Rifles Authorities is erroneous and against the law. 8. In support of his submission, the learned CGC has referred to the case of Ex. Lnk Mirgane Saudagar Navnath -versus- Union of India & Others decided by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Office, Guwahati on 12/06/2018 in OA(A)- 56/2016 and also the case of Ex. No. 14863424H Rank- Sepoy/Driver (Mechanical Transport) Suraj Singh decided by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow on 19/07/2018 in OA(A)128 of 2017 to contend that since the General Courts- Martial (GCM) and the Summary General Courts- Marital (SGCM) constituted under the Army Act, 1950, has been held to have the jurisdiction to try offences under the POCSO Act, 2012, the Assam Rifles Court constituted under the Act, 2006 to try the Assam Rifles, an armed forces of the Union, cannot be made an exception. The learned CGC has also relied in the case of Union of India represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Others -versus- Ranjit Kumar Saha & Another, reported in (2019) 7 SCC 505 to buttress the point that as the General Assam Rifles Court have been held to have the jurisdiction to try offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act which is triable exclusively by the Special Judge, the same would also apply to offences under the POCSO Act, 2012. 9. Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand submits that the accused has been charged for offences under section 354 IPC and for Aggravated Sexual Assault under section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and therefore, the accused is triable by the Special Court constituted under section 28 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and not by the GARC set up under the Act, 2006. The learned P.P. submits that the objective of the POCSO Act, 2012 is to provide for protection of Children from the offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment and pornography with due regard for safeguarding the interest and well being of the child at every stage of the judicial process, incorporating child friendly procedures for reporting, recording of evidence, investigation and for speedy trial of the offences. The learned P.P. submits that to achieve the objective and to punish the offenders Chapter-VIII of the POSCO Act, 2012, provides for the procedures and power of the Special Court. The learned P.P. submits that the GARC is not a special court as provided for in the Act, 2012 nor does the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 prescribed procedures for trial of offences under the POCSO Act, 2012. The learned P.P. accordingly submits that there is no infirmity with the impugned order dated 01/04/2021 passed by the learned Special Judge rejecting to deliver the accused to the Assam Rifle authorities for trial by the Assam Rifles Court. 10. In support of her submission, the learned P.P. has relied in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava -versus- Union of India & Others, reported in (2018) 17 SCC 291 to contend that cases registered under the POCSO Act are to tried and disposed only by the Special Court which is to be regulated and monitored by the committee constituted by the Hon’ble Chief Justices of the High Court. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the only issue which arises for the consideration of this Court is whether the GARC constituted under the Act, 2006 will have the jurisdiction to try the offences under the POCSO Act, 2012. 12. The POCSO Act, 2012 was enacted by the parliament with the very purpose of protecting the children from offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment and pornography and to provide for establishment of Special Court for trial of such offences as provided for in the Act, 2012. 12. The POCSO Act, 2012 was enacted by the parliament with the very purpose of protecting the children from offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment and pornography and to provide for establishment of Special Court for trial of such offences as provided for in the Act, 2012. The enactment was made taking into consideration the convention on the rights of the child adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations that has prescribed the set of standards to be followed by all the state parties in securing the best interest of the child. The Act also provides that the right of privacy and confidentiality of the child must be protected through all the stages of judicial process involving the child and to ensure the healthy, physical, emotional, intellectual and social development or the child. To ensure the well being of the victim child and to protect the child from any emotional and social harassment safeguards have been provided in the Act itself even during the trial of the offences. The Act accordingly lays stress on providing child friendly procedures. Section 42-A of the Act, 2012 also provides that “ the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the timing being in force and, in case of any inconsistency, the provisions of this Act shall have overriding effect on the provision of any such law to the extent of inconsistency.” 13. The Assam Rifles Act on the other hand was enacted by the parliament to consolidate and amend the law relating to the governance of the Assam Rifles, an Armed Force of the Union for ensuring the security of the borders of India, to carry out counter insurgency operations in specified areas and to act in aid of civil authorities for maintenance of law and order and for matters connected therewith. 14. It is relevant to refer to the following sections of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006; 2 (e) “civil offence” means an offence which is triable by a criminal court. 2(h) “criminal court” means a court of ordinary criminal justice in any part of India. 2(r) “offence” means any act or omission punishable under this Act and includes a civil offence. 55. 2(h) “criminal court” means a court of ordinary criminal justice in any part of India. 2(r) “offence” means any act or omission punishable under this Act and includes a civil offence. 55. Civil offences.—Subject to the provisions of section 56, any person subject to this Act who at any place in, or beyond, India commits any civil offence shall be deemed to be guilty of an offence against this Act and, if charged therewith under this section, shall be liable to be tried by an Assam Rifles Court and, on conviction, be punishable as follows, that is to say,— (a) if the offence is one which would be punishable under any law in force in India with death, he shall be liable to suffer any punishment assigned for the offence, by the aforesaid law and such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned; and (b) in any other case, he shall be liable to suffer any punishment assigned for the offence by the law in force in India, or imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or such less punishment as in this Act mentioned. 56. Civil offences not triable by an Assam Rifles Court.—A person subject to this Act who commits an offence of murder or of culpable homicide not amounting to murder against, or of rape in relation to, a person not subject to this Act shall not be deemed to be guilty of an offence against this Act and shall not be tried by an Assam Rifles Court, unless he commits any of the said offences,— (a) while on active duty; or (b) at any place outside India; or (c) at any place specified by the Central Government, by notification in this behalf. The said sections of law under the Act, 2006 corresponds to section 3(ii), 3(viii), 3(xviii), 69 & 70 of the Army Act, 1950. 15. The above provisions of law under the Act, 2006 makes it clear that any members of the Assam Rifles shall be liable to be tried by the Assam Rifles Court for committing a civil offence, which means an offence which is triable by a criminal court. A criminal court means a court of ordinary criminal justice in any part of India. The only offences which are not triable by the Assam Rifles Court are those specified in section 56 of the Act, 2006. 16. A criminal court means a court of ordinary criminal justice in any part of India. The only offences which are not triable by the Assam Rifles Court are those specified in section 56 of the Act, 2006. 16. It is further relevant to refer to section 102 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 and to section 475 of the Cr. P.C, 1973; Section 102. Choice between criminal court and Assam Rifles Court.—When a criminal court and an Assam Rifles Court each have jurisdiction in respect of an offence, it shall be in the discretion of the Director-General, or the Inspector- General or the Deputy Inspector-General within whose command the accused person is serving or such other officer as may be prescribed, to decide before which court proceedings shall be instituted, and, if that officer, decides that they shall be instituted before an Assam Rifles Court, to direct that the accused person shall be detained in Force custody. Section 102 of the Act, 2006 corresponds to section 125 of the Army Act, 1950. Section 475 of Cr. P. C provides as follows; Delivery to Commanding Officers of persons liable to be tried by Court-Martial- (1) The Central Government may make rules consistent with this Code and the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950 ), the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957), and the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), and any other law, relating to the Armed Forces of the Union, for the time being in force, as to cases in which persons subject to military, naval or air force law, or such other law, shall be tried by a Court to which this Code applies or by a Court-martial; and when any person is brought before a Magistrate and charged with an offence for which he is liable to be tried either by a Court to which this Code applies or by a Court-Martial, such Magistrate shall have regard to such rules, and shall in proper cases deliver him, together with a statement of the offence of which he is accused, to the commanding officer of the unit to which he belongs, or to the commanding officer of the nearest military, naval or air force station, as the case may be, for the purpose of being tried by a Court- Martial. Explanation.- In this section (a) "unit" includes a regiment, corps, ship, detachment, group, battalion or company, (b) "Court-martial" includes any tribunal with the powers similar to those of a Court-martial constituted under the relevant law applicable to the Armed Forces of the Union. (2) Every Magistrate shall, on receiving a written application for that purpose by the commanding officer of any unit or body of soldiers, sailors or airmen stationed or employed at any such place, use his utmost endeavours to apprehend and secure any person accused of such offence. (3) A High Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that a prisoner detained in any jail situate within the State be brought before a Court-martial for trial or to be examined touching any matter pending before the Court-martial. 17. A reading of section 102 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 and section 475 of the Cr. P.C makes it clear that when both the criminal court and the Assam Rifles Court have jurisdiction to try an offence involving an Assam Rifle personal, it shall be in the discretion of the Officers specified in section 102 of the Act, 2006 to decide in the first instance as to the court in which the proceedings shall be instituted and if such officers decide that the proceedings shall be instituted before the Assam Rifle Court he shall order the accused person shall be detained in the force custody. It is thus clear that the legislature has left it to the discretion of the Army authorities to take a decision. In the instant case, the Assam Rifles authorities took the decision to try the accused for commission of the civil offence under section 354 IPC and section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and accordingly submitted the petition dated 01/03/2021 to handover the accused to the Assam Rifles custody which was however rejected by the Special Judge by order dated 01/04/2021. The Special Judge in refusing to deliver the accused to the Assam Rifles Authorities for trial of the offence by the Assam Rifles Court acted contrary to the provision of law as provided for in section 475 Cr. P.C. and section 102 of the Act, 2006. 18. The Special Judge in refusing to deliver the accused to the Assam Rifles Authorities for trial of the offence by the Assam Rifles Court acted contrary to the provision of law as provided for in section 475 Cr. P.C. and section 102 of the Act, 2006. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Singh & Another -versus- State of Punjab, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 90 after referring to Rules 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the Criminal Courts and Court-Martial (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1952 has held as follows; “17. A conjoint reading of the above provisions shows that when a criminal court and court-martial each have jurisdiction in respect of the trial of the offence, it shall be in the discretion of the officer commanding the group, wing or station in which the accused is serving or such other officer as may be prescribed, in the first instance, to decide before which court the proceedings shall be instituted and if that officer decides that they should be instituted before a "courtmartial", to direct that the accused persons shall be detained in air force custody. Thus, the option to try a person subject to the Air Force Act who commits an offence while on "active service" is in the first instance with the Air Force Authorities. The criminal court, when such an accused is brought before it shall not proceed to try such a person or to inquire with a view to his commitment for trial and shall give a notice to the Commanding Officer of the accused, to decide whether they would like to try the accused by a court-martial or allow the criminal court to proceed with the trial. In case, the Air Force Authorities decide either not to try such a person by a courtmartial or fail to exercise the option when intimated by the criminal court within the period prescribed by Rule 4 of the 1952 Rules (supra), the accused can be tried by the ordinary criminal court in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the other hand if the Authorities under the Act opt to try the accused by the 'court-martial', the criminal court shall direct delivery of the custody of the accused to the Authorities under the Act and to forward to the Authorities a statement of the offence of which he is accused. On the other hand if the Authorities under the Act opt to try the accused by the 'court-martial', the criminal court shall direct delivery of the custody of the accused to the Authorities under the Act and to forward to the Authorities a statement of the offence of which he is accused. It is explicit that the option to try the accused subject to the Act by a court-martial is with the Air Force Authorities and the accused person has no option or right to claim trial by a particular forum. The option appears to have been left with the Air Force Authorities for good and proper reasons. There may be a variety of circumstances which may influence the decision of the Air Force Authorities as to whether the accused be tried by a court-martial or by a criminal court. This Court in Ram Sarup v. Union of India opined: "In short, it is clear that there could be a variety of circumstances which may influence the decision as to whether the offender be tried by a court-martial or by an ordinary criminal court, and therefore it becomes inevitable that the discretion to make the choice as to which Court should try the accused be left to responsible military officers under whom the accused be serving. Those officers are to be guided by considerations of the exigencies of the service, maintenance of discipline in the army, speedier trial, the nature of the offence and the person against whom the offence is committed." There appears to be sound logic to give the first option to the Authorities under the Act to decide whether the accused should be tried by the court martial or the criminal court. The defence of the country being of paramount importance, the Air Force Authorities would know best as to whether the accused should be tried by the court-martial or by the ordinary criminal court because the trial by the ordinary criminal court would necessarily involve a member of the force being taken away for trial by the ordinary criminal court and not being available to the Authorities and the like considerations. However, in the event the criminal court is of the opinion, for reasons to be recorded, that instead of giving option to the Authorities under the Act, the said court should proceed with the trial of the accused, without being moved by the competent authority under the Act and the Authorities under the Act decide to the contrary, the conflict of jurisdiction shall be resolved by the Central Government under Section 125(2) of the Act and the decision as to the forum of trial by the Central Government in that eventuality shall be final.” 19. In Ranjit Kumar Saha (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue as to whether the General Assam Rifles Court constituted under the Assam Rifles Act has the jurisdiction to try offences against the personnel’s of the Assam Rifles under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has held that; “8. The Courts, as a rule, lean against implying repeal unless the two provisions are so plainly repugnant to each other that they cannot stand together and it is not possible on any reasonable hypothesis to give effect to both at the same time. If the objects of the two statutory provisions are different and the language of each statute is restricted to its own objects or subject, then they are generally intended to run in parallel lines without meeting and there would be no real conflict though apparently it may appear to be so on the surface. Statutes in pari materia although in apparent conflict, should also, so far as reasonably possible, be construed to be in harmony with each other and it is only when there is an irreconcilable conflict between the new provision and the prior statute relating to the same subjectmatter, that the former, being the later expression of the legislature, may be held to prevail, the prior law yielding to the extent of the conflict.. 19. Consolidation and amendment of laws relating to the prevention of corruption is the object of the PC Act whereas consolidation of laws relating to the governance of Assam Rifles for ensuring the security of the borders of India, to carry out the counter insurgency operations in the specified areas etc., is the object of the 2006 Act. 19. Consolidation and amendment of laws relating to the prevention of corruption is the object of the PC Act whereas consolidation of laws relating to the governance of Assam Rifles for ensuring the security of the borders of India, to carry out the counter insurgency operations in the specified areas etc., is the object of the 2006 Act. Since the objects of the two Statutes are different and as the applicability of the 2006 Act is restricted to the members of the Assam Rifles, following the aforementioned principles on the presumption against implied repeal, Section 4 of the PC Act and Section 55 of the 2006 Act which are in apparent conflict can be harmoniously construed. This is on the basis that there is no real conflict between the provisions of the two statute and they can run in parallel lines. 21. We reiterate that section 4 of the PC Act is not irreconcilable with section 55 of the 2006 Act, which is a later local statute, to such an extent that the two cannot stand together. Therefore, the jurisdiction exercisable by GARC under section 55 of the 2006 Act can be treated as an exception to the provisions of the PC Act. 22. In view of the aforesaid findings, we are of the opinion that GARC has the jurisdiction to try offences under the PC Act against the members of the Assam Rifles. Therefore, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed.” 20. Further in the case of Naik Bibhu Prasad -versus- Union of India and Others, the High Court of Jammu, Kashmir & Ladakh in W,P.(C) No. 947/2022 (O&M) decided on 02/06/2022, the learned Single Judge while deciding the case as to whether the Summary General Court Martial has jurisdiction to try offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 has held as follows; “11. Section 69 of the Act (supra) deals with civil offences and provides that any person, who is subject to Act (supra), who at any place in or beyond India commits civil offence, shall be deemed to be guilty of an offence against this Act and if charged with this section, shall be liable to be tried by a court- martial. Section 69 of the Act (supra) deals with civil offences and provides that any person, who is subject to Act (supra), who at any place in or beyond India commits civil offence, shall be deemed to be guilty of an offence against this Act and if charged with this section, shall be liable to be tried by a court- martial. Exception to section 69 is provided by section 70 of the Act(supra), that provides that if a person subject to this Act commits murder of a person not subject to military, naval or air force law, or of culpable homicide not amounting to murder against such a person or of rape of such a person, he shall not be deemed to be guilty of an offence under this Act and shall not be tried by a courtmartial unless he commits offences while on active service, or at any place outside India, or at a frontier post specified by the Central Government by notification in this behalf. Section 3(ii) defines civil offence as an offence which is triable by a criminal court. Further section 3 (viii) defines criminal court as a court of ordinary criminal justice in any part of India. Section 3 (xvii) defines offence as any act or omission punishable under this Act and includes a civil offence. 12. So far as offences under POCSO Act, 2012 are concerned, they are civil offences, notwithstanding the fact that section 28 of Act 2012, provides for designation of Court of Sessions as Special Court. The Special Courts have been created under the Act of 2012 with an avowed purpose of conducting speedy trial and to protect the dignity, psychology and honour of victim child. The Court of Sessions is a criminal court and once the offences under the Act of 2012 are triable by the Court of Sessions though designated as Special Court by the State Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court, the offences under the Act of 2012 would constitute a civil offence for the purpose of section 69 of the Act of 1950. 13. Now, what is required to be seen is, as to whether there is any prohibition of trial for an offence under Act of 2012, by the SGCM or not. 13. Now, what is required to be seen is, as to whether there is any prohibition of trial for an offence under Act of 2012, by the SGCM or not. There is no provision in the Act of 2012 that bars the jurisdiction of SGCM to try the offences under the Act of 2012. Rather section 42-A of Act of 2012 provides that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of provisions of any other law for the time being in force and in case of any inconsistency only, the provisions of this Act shall have overriding effect on the provisions of any such law to the extent of inconsistency. 14. Section 28 of the Act of 2012 does provide for designation of Court of Sessions in each district as Special Court but at the same time, the Act of 2012 does not provide for any bar upon the court-martial to try the offences under Act of 2012. There is in fact no head on collision between the Act of 1950 and Act of 2012 so that both these Acts cannot operate in the same field. The court martial, of course, has to comply with the provisions meant for purpose of protecting the identity, dignity and psychology of victim child during the course of trial so that the trial by the courtmartial is not inconsistent with the provisions contained under the Act of 2012. 15. More so, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has also dismissed the appeal titled, Col. Hardeep Singh Bindra vs. Union of India, relying upon its order passed in NK Kolebar Dhaugi Haude vs. Union of India and Ors. dismissing the challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court-martial to try the offences punishable under Act of 2012. 17. In view of what has been discussed above, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no error on the part of SGCM to reject the plea of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner. As such, the present petition is found to be without merits and the same is dismissed.” 21. 17. In view of what has been discussed above, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no error on the part of SGCM to reject the plea of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner. As such, the present petition is found to be without merits and the same is dismissed.” 21. This Court is in respectful agreement with the decision of the learned Single Judge rendered in Naik Bibbu Prasad (supra) more particularly with the findings that there is no head on collision between the Army Act, 1950 and the POCSO Act, 2012 as both these Acts do not operate in the same field. The only caution emphasized by the learned Single Judge is that the Court-martial is not inconsistent with the provisions contained under the Act, 2012. The same principle, in the considered opinion of this Court would also apply to the Act, 2006 and the POCSO Act, 2012. 22. This Court has perused the provisions of law under the POCSO Act, 2012 and there is no provision, provided therein, which bars the jurisdiction of the Assam Rifles Court from trying offences under the Indian Penal Code or the POCSO Act, 2012. The only exception to section 55 of the Act, 2006 for trial of civil offences is provided for in section 56 of the said Act. This Court has also perused the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Alakh Alok Srivastava (supra) wherein the Apex Court after discussing the relevant provisions of the POCSO Act, 2012 has inter-alia issued appropriate directions to regulate and monitor the progress of the trials under the POCSO Act by a committee of judges constituted by the Chief Justices of the High Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Alakh Alok Srivastava (supra), in the considered opinion of this Court however did not deal with the question as to whether the Court-martial constituted under the Army Act, 1950 or the Assam Rifles Court constituted under the Act, 2006 had the competence and the jurisdiction to try offences under the POCSO Act, 2012. 23. The provisions in the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 corresponds to the provisions contained in the Army Act, 1950. This Court is therefore, is of the view that the GARC constituted under the Act, 2006 has the jurisdiction to try offences under the POCSO Act, 2012 except those specified in section 56 of the Act, 2006. 23. The provisions in the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 corresponds to the provisions contained in the Army Act, 1950. This Court is therefore, is of the view that the GARC constituted under the Act, 2006 has the jurisdiction to try offences under the POCSO Act, 2012 except those specified in section 56 of the Act, 2006. In the instant case, the accused was charged with the offence under section 354 IPC and section 10 of the POCSO Act while on active duty, therefore section 55 & 56 of the Act, 2006 is attracted and accordingly, the GARC has the jurisdiction to try the accused under Act, 2006. It is needless to mention that the Assam Rifles Court while trying the offence shall adhere and strictly comply with the provision of the law as provided for in the Act, 2012, more particularly the provisions as provided for in Chapter-VIII of the Act which contains provision meant for the purpose of protecting the identity, dignity and psychology of the victim child during the course of the trial so that the trial by the Assam Rifles Court is not inconsistent with the provisions contained under the Act, 2012. For expeditious disposal of the trial, the GARC shall adhere to section 35 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 24. In the light of the discussions and observations made above, the order dated 01/04/2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, FTSC, Dimapur in G.R No. 115/2021 rejecting the application dated 01/03/2021 submitted by the Deputy Inspector General, Headquarters 6 Sector Assam Rifles to handover the accused to the Assam Rifles Authorities for trial of the accused by the GARC, is hereby set aside and quashed. 25. The learned Special Judge shall, if the accused is on bail, fixed a date and summon the accused for appearance on the date fixed, with prior notice/intimation to the Deputy Inspector General, Headquarter 6 Sector Assam Rifles, C/o 99 APO and on the date so fixed and on the appearance of the accused before the Court, the learned Special Judge shall deliver the accused to the Deputy Inspector General, Assam Rifles or his authorized representatives forthwith. The learned Special Judge shall deliver the accused together with the statement of offences with which the accused is charged. 26. The learned Special Judge shall deliver the accused together with the statement of offences with which the accused is charged. 26. The Assam Rifles Authorities on completion of the trial by the GARC, shall furnish a copy of the decision/order to the Court of the learned Special Judge, FTSC, Dimapur, Nagaland for records. 27. The criminal revision petition is accordingly allowed. No cost. 28. Send back the LCR forthwith.