The POCSO Act prevails over the Prevention of Atrocities Act in case of inconsistency, and offences under both Acts can be tried by a Court of Sessions notified under the Prevention of Atrocities Act without splitting the trial.

1. This revision under Section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 15.05.2013 passed by the Sessions judge Ratlam in Sessions Trial No. 13/2013, relegating the trial for adjudication by the Special Judge notified under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as Prevention of Atrocities Act). In the present case an offence was registered at Crime No. 96/2013 by Police Station industrial Area, Ratlam under Section 363, 366, 342, 506-B & 376-D of IPC and also under Section 5(g), 6 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "POCSO Act") and Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, wherein challan was filed in the court of sessions notified as "Children's Court."

2. Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the cognizance had taken by the Court of Sessions, notified under POCSO Act, which is transferred by Sessions Judge, Ratlam vide order dated 15.05.2013 to the Special Judge notified under the Prevention of Atrocities Act. It is his grievance that having involved in the offence under the POCSO Act and the Prevention of Atrocities Act both along with offences of IPC, challan may be filed before the Court of Sessions notified to hear the cases under POCSO Act, however, assignment of the case for trial to the Special Judge, Prevention of Atrocities is illegal. It is submitted that before Special Judge Prevention of Atrocities challan is not required to file directly and the said court shall try the case cases received after committal by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. In the present case, challan has been filed directly before the Court of Sessions, however, it shall affect the trial prejudicing the accused. In support of such contention reliance has been placed on a judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Gangula Ashok and Another vs. State of A.P. 2000 SCC (Cri.) 488. It is further submitted that the prevention Atrocities Act is of Year 1989, while the POCSO Act is of 2012 and both are special enactments, the POCSO Act being later enactment shall prevail applying the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant. Thus, by passing the order impugned, transfer of the session trial to the Special Judge Prevention of Atrocities is against the law laid down by the Apex Court, however, the order impugned may be set aside and the case may be directed to be decided by the Court of Sessions notified under the POCSO Act.

3. Shri R.S. Basis, learned Deputy G.A. appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that under Section 14 of the Prevention of Atrocities Act the Courts have been notified in every district while as per Section 25 of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2005") a Court of Sessions in the district may hear and decide the offences of said Act shall be declared as a "Children's Court" to provide speedy trial for such offences and to try the cases of Rights to Juvenile. As per proviso to Section 28 of the POCSO Act, it is clear that notification issued under the Act of 2005 shall be applicable to try the offences and cases of POCSO Act. Thus, in the present case, the offences involved for trial are of both the special enactments and also of IPC; however, the Sessions Judge, Ratlam, has rightly relegated the trial for adjudication before the special Judge Prevention of Atrocities, Ratlam, who is also a Court of sessions and may try the offences against children. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, even the provisions of POCSO Act would prevail, being later enactment, but to adopt the harmonious, interpretation the order impugned passed by the Sessions Judge, Ratlam is in accordance with law. In addition thereto after submitti