( 1 ) THESE two petitions are disposed of by this common order. The petitioner who is the original complainant has challenged the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Misc. Criminal application Nos. 163 and 164 of 1992 releasing the respondents-accused on bail.

( 2 ) SHRI Patel, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner in both these applications has vehemently submitted that the order passed by the learned additional Sessions Judge releasing the respondents-accused on bail should be quashed and set aside by this Court, because he had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the said applications of the accused. He submitted that except the learned Sessions Judge no other Judge could hear and decide the bail application of the accused who are charged with the offence under the atrocities Act. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is without jurisdiction and it should be quashed and set aside. In support of his submission he has read Sec. 14 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act for short) and submitted that only a Court of Session is a Special Court which can try the offence under the Act. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge alone has got jurisdiction. He also read the Notification dated 30-1-1990 issued by the State Government to the extent. As per the said Notification the Court of Sessions is a Special court in Sessions Division, Mehsana to try the case under the Act.

( 3 ) MR. M. R. Raval, learned A. P. P. appearing for the State, in both these applications on advance copy of the petitioner served upon him by the petitioner, has brought to my notice Sec. 2 (12) (d) of the Act which defines special Court, i. e. , the Court of Session specified as Special Court under Sec. 14. He also brought to my notice provisions of Sec. 9 (1), (2), (3) of Cr. P. C. which are relevant for our purpose to decide the point in question raised by Shri Patel which are as under :"section 9 : Court of Session: (1) The State Government shall establish a Court of Session for every Sessions Division. (2) Every Court of Session shall be presided over by a Judge, to be appointed by the High Court. (3) The High Court may also appoint Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant sessions Judges to exercise jurisdiction in a Court of Session. "

( 4 ) UNDER Sec. 9 (1) the State Government establishes a Court of Session for every Sessions Division. Under Sec. 9 (2) every Court of Session is presided over by a Judge, i. e. . Sessions Judge appointed by the High Court. And Sec. 9 (2) the High Court may also appoint Additional and Assistant Judges to exercise jurisdiction in a Court of Sessions. Therefore, Court of Sessions would be a Special Court but that would not mean that the Sessions Judge alone could be empowered to try the offence under the Act, as Sec. 9 (3) clearly provides that Additional and Assistant Judges appointed by the High Court are empowered to exercise jurisdiction in a Court of Session which is a Special Court under the Act and therefore the learned Additional Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to exercise powers of a Sessions Judge as a Court of Session which is a special Court under the Act and therefore it cannot be said that the learned additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the bail applications filed by the accused before him who are charged with the offence punishable under the Act. Therefore, the contention raised by Shri Patel that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction and therefore the order of bail passed by him is bad fails and is rejected as it has got no substance.

( 5 ) I do agree with the alternative submission made by Shri Patel that ordinarily the learned Sessions Judge should himself decide the case and the bail application of the accused and he should not transfer that to Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge. It is desirable that lea