Thomas, J. -- 1. Leave granted.

2. Even after noticing that the trial proceedings in the case had already undergone a very protracted career ranging over a period of 9 years to reach its finale, a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has now ordered that the whole exercise should be repeated over again and then reach a fresh conclusion. It seems learned Judge of the High Court felt helpless to do otherwise. In the prologue of the impugned judgment, the Division Bench bewailed like this: "This case has sluggished for nearly 9 years and the end is not in sight as direction for a retrial seems inevitable", Was it such a helpless situation that by no means repetition of the whole hog is unpreventable ?

3. We shall now briefly sketch. the background of this appeal, On 26.8.1991, an incident happened in which one Undaria was murdered and three others were wounded. The police, after investigation, charge-sheeted eleven persons in respect of the said incident for various offences including section 302 read with section 149, IPC and section 3(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short 'the SC/ST Act'). The case started in January, 1992 before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar (M.P.) which was the specified Court as per section 14 of the said Act. The Court framed charges against all the eleven persons for the aforementioned offences and proceeded with the trial. In the words of the Division Bench of the High Court, "after a protracted trial for about five years, the eleven persons were convicted under sections 148, 323, 302/149 of the IPC and sentenced to various punishments including imprisonment for life", as per the judgment pronounced on 23.8.1996.

4. All the eleven convicted persons filed appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, It was during the pendency• of the said appeal that Supreme Court decided the case in Gangula Ashok v. State of A.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 504], in which it was held that committal proceedings are necessary for a specified Court under the SC/ST Act to take cognizance of the offences to be tried. But the legal position which held the field in the State of Madhya Pradesh till then was the same on account of a judgment pronounced by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Meerabhai v. Bhujbal Singh [l995 CrLJ 2376 (MP)]. But the said legal position was changed in the said State when a Full Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh overruled the aforesaid dictum by a judgment reported in Anand Swaroop v. Ram Ratan [1996 JLJ 8 = 1996 MPLJ 141]. The Full Bench held that "Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply to proceedings under the SC/ST Act and committal orders are not required". The Full Bench, in order to prevent repetition of trials already held or started, took the precautionary measure of directing that "when cognizance has already been taken on the basis of committal orders it is not necessary for the Courts to retrace their steps or to take cognizance afresh". The said judgment of the Full Court was delivered on 23.8.1995.

5. When this Court pronounced judgment in Gangula Ashok (supra), the legal position adopted by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Meerabhai (supra) got revived and the Full Bench decision (supra) got eclipsed. Taking advantage of the decision of this Court, all the convicted persons filed IA. No. 288 of'2000 before the High Court seeking quashment of the trial proceedings on the ground that "the trial was without jurisdiction inasmuch as the specified Court of Sessions did not acquire jurisdiction to take cognizance of and try the case, in the absence of it being committed by a Magistrate". By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the said contention and ordered "the entire trial held by the Court below' shall stand quashed and the trial Court is directed to return the charge-sheet and the connected papers to the pr