P. VENKATARAMA REDDI AND R. M. BAPAT, JJ.

( 1 ) THE learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Khammam invested with powers of Special Court constituted under Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) made the reference under Section 395 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it is numbered as Crl. RC No. 905 and 1084 of 1996 on the file of High Court. The same learned Judge while working as Addl. Sessions Judge at Warangal who was also invested with the powers of Special Court under aforementioned Act had, while reiterating the same reasons, sought for quashing the proceedings at various stages in Sessions Case Nos. 3, 4 and 9 of 1996 (on the file of the Special Court under the Act ). We will be dealing with that case i. e. , Crt. RC No. 1084 of 1996 separately. The questions referred by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl. RC No. 905 of 1996 are: (1) Whether the Special Court constituted under Section 14 of the Central Act XXXIII of 1989 is empowered and competent to take cognizance of and to try, any offence other than an offence under the said Act with which the accused may, under the Criminal Procedure Code, be charged at the same trial. (2) Whether the Hon ble High Court itself had the power and is competent to vest and if so, the circular order in ROC No. 2582/so/91, dated 12-2-1992 of Hon ble High Court, issued in exercise of its powers under-Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code vests such non-territorial jurisdiction upon such Special Court as stated in High Court s RC No. 2137/e-l/94, dated 4-9-1996; (3) If the answer 10 Question Nos. 1 and 2 is no what is the procedure to be adopted in respect of those cases pending trial (which were received by transfer from Special Court, Mahabubnagar) and those charge-sheets pending consideration before this Court involving commission of an offence under both the Act and IPC (Special Minor Offences under the Act and Major Offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 376, 354, IPC etc. ,) both of which are committed during the course of same transaction;thus, the correct procedure to be followed by the Special Court constituted under the Act and the jurisdiction of the Special Court to try the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, committed in the course of the same transaction are the two questions of law on which the learned Presiding Officer of the Special Court has entertained a doubt and sought the decision of the High Court. The questions as to effect and validity of the Circulars ROC No. 2582/so/91, dated 12-2-1992 and ROC No. 2137/e-1/94, dated 4-9-1996 issued by the Court has also been raised in these reference cases.

( 2 ) IN Criminal Revision Case No. 1084 of 1996, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Warangal acting as Judge for Special Court under the Act, Warangal seeks quashing of the proceedings in Session Case Nos. 3, 4 and 9 of 1996 which were transferred to that Court on the ground that the correct procedure was not followed by the transferring Court i. e. , the Special Court at Mahabubnagar while taking cognizance of the offences and that the Special Court has no jurisdiction to try such offences by reason of the fact that the alleged acts do not attract the provisions of the Act and the Special Court should not have taken cognizance thereof.

( 3 ) WHEN the references came up before our learned brother A. Hanumanthu J. , the learned Judge felt that the decision of the learned single Judge of this Court (V. Rajagopala Reddy, J. ,) in S. Madhava Reddy v. State of A. P. rep. by the Public Prosecutor reported in 1996 (1) ALT Crl. 452 (A. P.), was not correctly decided and that in view of the conflicting decisions of the various High Courts, it is desirable that a Division Bench or Full Bench gives an authoritative pronouncement on the following legal questions: (1) What is the procedure to be followed while taking cognizance of the offences by the Special Court, consti