B. Kemal Pasha, J.

1. This is a criminal revision initiated under Section 401 Cr.P.C. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Mobile Squad, Wayanad filed final report against the accused alleging offences under Sections 324 and 294(b) IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'special Act') in Crime No. 413/2013 of Vellamunda Police Station. On receipt of the final report and on a perusal of the records, the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Mananthavady was satisfied that the case against the accused is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, Kalpetta. Therefore, the matter was treated as C.P. 15/2014 and the learned Magistrate committed the case against the accused to the Court of Session, Kalpetta.

2. On getting the matter committed, the learned Sessions Judge, Kalpetta has entertained a doubt as to whether the matter could be committed to the Court of Session, Kalpetta, since a special court for the trial of offences under the special Act has been established at Mananthavady. The view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is that the learned Magistrate ought to have committed the case directly to the Special Court, Mananthavady for trial of the offences under the special Act. The learned Sessions Judge has also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Gangula Ashok v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2000 (1) KLT 609, wherein it was held that a special court under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is essentially a Court of Sessions and it can take cognizance of the offence only when the case is committed by the Magistrate in accordance with the provisions of the Code.

3. On going through Section 209 Cr.P.C., it seems that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is erroneous. As per Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, when in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or brought before the Magistrate, and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall commit, after complying with the provisions of Section 207 or Section 208, as the case may be, the case to the Court of Session. Therefore, the only course open to the Magistrate when it appears to him in such a case that the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, is to commit the case to the Court of Session. There is no other provision regarding committal in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. When the committal can only be under Section 209 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is empowered to commit the case to the Court of Session only and not to any other court.

4. As per Section 9(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the State Government shall establish 'a Court of Session' for every Sessions Division. As per Section 9(2), every Court of Session shall be presided over by a Judge, to be appointed by the High Court. Therefore, the appointment of a Judge as Sessions Judge of a Court of Session shall be made by the High Court. As per Section 9 (3), the High Court may also appoint Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges to exercise the jurisdiction in a Court of Session. From the above provisions, it is evident that there can be one Sessions Court only for a Sessions Division. If there are more courts established for exercising Sessions powers, such courts can only be Additional Sessions Courts or Assistant Sessions Courts, as the case may be. Even in a case wherein a Special Court is there for the trial of the offences under the said special Act, it has got the status of an Additional Sessions Court only within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

5. As per Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, for the purpose of providing speedy trial of the offences under the said Act, the State Government with the concurrence of t