JUDGMENT

B. P. DAS, J. — The aforesaid Criminal Reference arises out of a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Cuttack, under Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’). It is stated by the learned Special Judge that during the course of hearing of G. R. Case No. 257 of 1993 where¬in the accused persons were facing trial under Sections 341, 323, 294, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘I.P.C.’) and under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the learned counsel for the defence prayed to drop the proceeding on the following grounds :

“(1) For non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995.

(2) Further progress in cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act pending in the Special Courts is bad without committal proceeding in view of the principle enunciated in (2000) 18 O.C.R. 364.”

The learned Special Judge in the reference has stated that the first ground is not tenable since the offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short ‘the Act’) was committed on 23.6.1993 and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (in short ‘the Rules’) came into force on 31.3.1995. So far as the second contention is concerned, the learned Special Judge has entertained a doubt as to whether the Special Court can proceed with the trials in pending cases under the Act, which are at different stages after cognizance prior to pronouncement of the decision by the apex Court in Gangula Ashok v. State of A.P., (2000) 18 O.C.R. (SC) 364 : (2002) 2 S.C.C. 504, without commitment under Section 193, Cr.P.C. or shall send the cases back to the respective Magistrates for taking cognizance and for commitment.

2. So far as the other cases are concerned, i.e., Crl. Misc. Case Nos. 5564 and 6092/1999, 1516, 3864, 4337 and 1906/2000 and Crl. Revision No. 278/1997, the aforesaid ambiguity having crept in, all these cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned State Counsel in the aforesaid cases.

4. So far as ground No.1 is concerned, it is profitable to go through the relevant statutory provisions.

Rules 7 of the Rules speaks as under :

“7. Investigating Officer - (1) An offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by a Police Officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The Investigating Officer shall be appointed by the State Government/Director-General of Police/Superintendent of Police after taking into account his past experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications of the case and investigate it along with right lines within the shortest possible time.

(2) The Investigating Officer so appointed under Sub-rule (1) shall complete the investigation on top priority within thirty days and submit the report to the Superintendent of Police who in turn will immediately forward the report to the Director-General of Police of the State Government.

(3) The Home Secretary and the Social Welfare Secretary to the State Government, Director of Prosecution, the officer-in-charge of Prosecution and the Director-General of Police shall review by the end of every quarter the position of all investiga¬tions done by the Investigating Officer.”

Section 9 of the Act reads as follows :

“9. Conferment of Powers - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or in any other provision of this Act, the State Government may, if it considers it necessary or expedient so to do -

(a) for the prevention of and for coping with any offence under this Act, or

(b) for any case or class or group of cases under this Act,

in any district or part thereof, confer, by notification in the Official Gazette, on any officer of the State Government the powers exe