JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-These appeals involve identical issues and are taken up for disposal together.

2. Appellants faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(iii), 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short the Act ). The Trial Court found the appellants guilty and imposed sentences. Appeal before the High Court did not bring any relief to them.

3. The primary stand taken in this appeal is that the Trial Court could not have suo moto entertained and registered the complaint as a sessions case.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the judgment of the courts below stating that this plea is taken for the first time in this Court and was not taken before the Courts below.

5. Pristine question to be considered is whether the Special Judge could take cognizance of the offence straight away 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, 1973 (for short the Code ) would stand in the way. It reads thus:

"193. Cognizance of offences by Courts of Session-Except