Misra, J. -- 1. Perceiving divergent and contradictory views as regards the effect and impact of not committing an accused in terms of section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code’) in cases where charge-sheet is filed under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity ‘the Act’) and cognizance is directly taken by the Special Judge under the Act, a two-Judge Bench thought it apposite to refer the matter to a larger Bench and on the basis of the said reference, the matter has been placed before us. At this juncture, it is requisite to clarify that the real conflict or discord is manifest in Moly v. State of Kerala [AIR 2004 SC 1890], and vidyadharan v. State of Kerala [(2004)1 SCC 215], on one hand wherein it has been held that the conviction by the Special Court is not sustainable if it has suo motu entertained and taken cognizance of the complaint directly without the case being committed to it and, therefore, there should be retrial or total setting aside of the conviction, as the case may be, and the other in State of M.P. v. Bhooraji [2001(2) JLJ 321=JT 2001(7) SC 55], wherein, taki