The provisions of S. 200 and S. 202 of the CrPC do not apply in cases falling under the U. P. Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1973, allowing Special Courts to proceed under S. 7 of the Act.

1. This is a revision under S.397/401 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 , (for short the Code), with a prayer that the order dt. 10-7-86 passed by the Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Agra, issuing process against the applicants in a case under S. 395, IPC, may be set aside.

2. It appears that after the F.I.R.. was lodged, the police investigated the case under S.395 of the IPC. against the applicants and submitted a final report. Thereafter a protest petition was filed and some witnesses were examined and their statements were recorded under S.200 and S.202 of the Code. Apart from other witnesses, principally three witnesses, ilel (sic) Bishambhar Singh, Sahab Singh and Danodar Singh supported the complainant case and they had also earlier filed affidavits. The Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Agra after considering the aforesaid statements was of the view that a prima facie case for taking cognizance and issuing process was made out. Consequently, cognizance was taken and process issued fixing 6-8-86 for appearance of the applicants. Against that order the present revision has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant urged that as it was a case triable exclusively by the court of Session and was covered by the provisions of U. P. Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1973 , (for short the Act), hence all the prosecution witnesses must have been examined and the Second Proviso to S. 202 was mandatory, which was to the effect that the Magistrate shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. It was accordingly urged that the order issuing process against the applicants under S. 204 of the Code was illegal.

4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand, supported the order issuing process under S. 204 of the Code.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that the revision has got no merits. The principal question for determination is as to whether S.200 and S.202 of the Code, providing for examination of complainant and his witnesses as present on all the witnesses as in a case triable exclusively by the court of Session would apply, when the case was governed by the provisions of the U. P. Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1983.

6. In fact, S. 395 of the IPC was a scheduled offence in view of S.4(2)* of the Act. The Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Areas) has been empowered to take cognizance, issue process and to proceed with the trial. The present case would be governed by the provisions of S. 4(2) of the Cri. P.C., which enacts that all offences under any other law shall be investigated, enquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the same principles, but subject to any enactment (i.e. U. P. Dacoity Affected Areas Act) providing the manner, place of investigation, enquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. Offence of dacoity under S. 395 IPC being a scheduled offence, procedure for taking cognizance, issuing process would be governed by S.7 of the Act, consequently, the provisions of S. 200 and 202 of the Code providing procedure in a complaint case to a Magistrate would not apply.
* or S.2(b) .... Ed

7. Ex Abundanti Cautela, the statutory provisions of S. 7 of the Act are set out below :
''7. Procedure and powers of Special courts: (A)
A Special court may take cognizance of any scheduled offence -
(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence;
(b) upon a police report of such facts;
(c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon its own knowledge that such offence has been committed.
Provided tha