1. The point under consideration in this revision is that as to whether the offence punishable under sections 364-A read with section 34 and 302 read with section 34 of IPC for which the petitioners are facing trial are exclusively triable by the Special Judge appointed under section 6 (2) of Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 (herein after referred to as the Adhiniyam) or can be tried by a Sessions Judge also.

2. The facts in brief are --

(A) That the incident was happened on 11th March, 2006 in the area of Morar, Gwalior as it appears from the charge dated 25th April, 2006.

(B) That vide notification No. F. 12-223-2001-B (1)-II issued on 16th October, 2001 under the Adhiniyam, Gwalior has been declared a dacoity affected area.

(C) That initially the case was made over on 5th April, 2006 by the Sessions Judge to the Special Judge appointed under the Adhiniyam, but thereafter vide letter No. 1615/06 dated 17th April, 2006 it was withdrawn from the Court of Special Judge and is being tried by the Sessions Judge himself. Vide order dated 4th May, 2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gwalior, it appears that prosecution evidence has been closed. Vide order dated 20th May, 2006 passed by this Court further proceedings are stayed. Vide letter No. 1615 dated 17th April, 2006 written by Sessions Judge, Gwalior to the Special Judge appointed under the Adhiniyam for withdrawal of the case, it appears that on an oral information given by the reader of the lower Court that in the covering letter sending the committal order, section 11/13 of the Adhiniyam was wrongly mentioned and challan was filed only under sections 365, 364A and 302/34 of IPC, the case has been withdrawn.

3. It is submitted by Shri Ahirwar that the petitioners are facing trial in the aforementioned case for the offence punishable under sections 364A/34, 302/34 of IPC. These offences being specified offences, are to be tried by the Special Judge appointed under the Adhiniyam.

4. It is submitted by Shri Ghuraiya that the case being not related with the offence of dacoity, it is not required to be tried only by the Special Judge, as observed by the Full Bench of this Court in Gulab Chand v. State of M.P. [1982 JLJ 170].

5. To appreciate the contentions of the parties, perusal of the following relevant provisions will be required, hence, those are being reproduced herein below :

"Section 2 of the Adhiniyam. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--

(a) ...........

(b)...........

(c) "dacoity" and kidnapping affected area" means an area declared as a dacoity and kidnapping affected area under section 3;

(d) ............

(e) ............

(f) "specified offence" means --

(i) an offence specified in the schedule committed in relation to an area declared under section 3 being an offence forming part or arising out of/or connected with the commission of dacoity or kidnapping.

The Schedule

(i) Offences punishable under sections (***), 302, 303, 304, 307, 308, 325, 326, 327, 329, 331, 333, 363, 364, 365, 368, 369, 386, 387, 400 and (435) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860),

(ii) kidnapping or abduction for ransom;

(iii) ...............

(iv) ...............

(v) ...............

(vi) ...............

(vii) ...............

(viii) ...............

Section 4 of CrPC.

4. Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws.-- (1) all offences under the Indian Penal Code shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained.

(2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences.

Section 5 of CrPC.

5. Saving.--Nothing contained in this Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or