V.S. Dave, J.
1. This reference has been made by learned Special Judge Dacoity Affected Area, Karauli vide his order of reference, dated 20-6-1988 where in he has framed the following question for answer:
'Whether the Magistrates having jurisdiction over the dacoity affected areas are competent to perform functions in relation to scheduled offences, prior to the stage of trial before the Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Areas'?
2. Almost connected with the aforesaid question the point also emerge in Man Singh v. State, S.B Cr. Misc Petition No. 369/88, Heera Lal v. Johari and Ors. SB. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 178/89 and Hari Ram v. State SB. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2859/88. These cases therefore, have also been heard along with this reference though they will be disposed of by separate orders purely based on the result of this reference.
3. Before appreciating the point referred to it will be essential to give the back-ground in which this question has arisen. On a written report from one Manohari Mal the police station, Karauli registered a case under Section 384 IPC and Mansingh was arrested in the said case who was sent to Judicial custody. Against accused Chhutalli and Rati warrants were issued on application from Investigating Officer. The warrant against Chhutalli came unserved and since Rati was also not available proceedings were drawn under Section 82/83, Cr.P.C. After completing the investigation charge sheet was submitted in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karauli by A.P.P. against accused Mansingh and absconder Rati' for offence under Section 398. IPC. Offence under Section 398, IPC is a scheduled offence as defined under Raj. Dacoity Area Act, 1986 (here in after referred to as 'the Act of 1986'). When the charge-sheet was submitted before learned A.C.J.M. he vide his order, dated 11-5-1988 came to the conclusion that charge-sheet should have been directly submitted in the court of Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area, Karauli, since Section 398 IPC is a scheduled offence and returned the charge-sheet to the A.P.P. for proceeding in the competent court. When the accused was presented before the learned Special Judge, Dacoity. Affected Area he did not agree with the view taken by the learned Magistrate and since the question was of great public and private importance he referred it to this court.
4. The learned A.C.J.M while interpreting the provisions of Section 8 of the Act of 1986 gave his reasonings in paragraphs 5 and 6 of his order as under;
/kkjk 194 n.M+ izfdz;k lafgrk ds izko/kkuks ds vuqlkj ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] lokbZ ek/kksiqj ;k jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; tks/kiqj }kjk vuqlwfpr vijk/kh ftles Jo.kk/khu vijk/k lfEefyr gS] ds izdj.kks dks fof'k'B U;k;ky; MdSrh izHkkfor {ks= djkSyh dks vUoh{kk gsrq lqiqnZ djus gsrq dksbZ fo'ks'k vkns'k izlkfjr ugh dj j[ks gSA djkSyh mi[k.M+ es mn~Hkwr gksus okys ls'ku izdj.kks dh vUoh{kk gsrq izdkj.kks dks viu ls'ku U;k;ky; djkSyh dks lqiqnZ fd;s tkus dk ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k lokbZ ek/kksiqj }kjk fo'ks'k vkns'k izlkfjr fd;k gqvk gSA /kkjk 8 vf/kfu;e ds vUrZxr ;g micfU/kr fd;k x;k gS fd fo'ks'k U;k;ky; dks ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k ekuk tk;sxk ysfdu fof'k'B U;k;k/kh'k MdSrh izHkkfor {ks= djkSyh ds U;k;ky; dks izdj.kks dks vUoh{kk gsrq lqiqnZ fd;s tkus dk dksbZ fo'ks'k vkns'k izlkfjr ugh fd;k x;k gS A blfy, fdlh fo'ks'k vkns'k ds vHkko es mDr izdj.k dks vUoh{kk gsrq fof'k'V U;k;k/kh'k] MdSrh izHkkfor {ks= djkSyh dks vUoh{kk gsrq lqiqnZ ugh fd;k tk ldrk A
tgka rd /kkjk 193 n-iz-l- dk iz'u gS mles ;g izko/kku gS fd dksbZ ls'ku U;k;ky; ls'ku lqiqnZxh ;ksX; vijk/kks dh vUoh{kk ds fy, izlaKku rc rd ugh ysxk tc rd fd izdj.k eftLVsV }kjk ls'ku U;k;ky; dks lqiqnZ ugh fd;k tkos A ysfdu orZeku izdj.k es ,slk ugh gS A D;ksfd /kkjk 81 vf/kfu;e ds vUrZxr fo'ks'k U;k;ky; dks izlaKku ysus dh 'kfDr;ka iznku dh x;h gSA blfy, ;g ugh dg ldrk fd fo'ks'k U;k;ky; dks vuqlwfpr vijk/k ftles las'ku Jo.kk/khu vijk/k lfEefyr gS dks lqiqnZ fd;s fcuk ugh fy;k tk ldrk vkSj vUoh{kk ugh dj ldrk D;ksfd /kkjk 82 vf/kfu;e 86 ds vUrZxr ;g micfU/kr fd;k x;k gS fd vuqlwfpr vijk/k ds izdj.kks dh vUoh{kk izkjEHk djrs le; fo'ks'k U;k;ky; ,slk ekusxk fd izdj.k ls'ku lqiqnZ fd;k x;k gSA vUoh{kk ds fy, n.M+ izfdz;k lafgrk ds vUrZxr fu/kkZfjr ls'ku izdj.k dh izfdz;k viuk;h tk;sxh A;fn bu izko/kkuks dk ;g vk'k; gksrk fd ls'ku Jo.kk/khu vuqlwfpr vijk/kks ds izdj.k fo'ks'k U;k;ky; dks ml {ks= ds eftLVsV }kjk vUoh{kk gsrq lqiqnZ fd;k tkos rks 'kk;n ;g micU/k ugh fd;k tkrk fd vuqlwfpr vijk/kks dh fo'kas'k U;k;ky; vUoh{kk izkjEHk djrs le; ,lsk ekusxk fd izdj.k ls'ku lqiqnZ fd;k x;k gSA /kkjk 8 es dsoy ;g miyC/k fd;k x;k gSA fd fo'ks'k U;k;ky; vuqlwfpr vijk/kks ds izdj.kks dh vUoh{kk ds le; ls'ku izdj.k ds fy, fu/kkZfjr n.M+ izfdz;k lafgrk dh izfdz;k ds vuqlkj vUoh{kk djsxk A
nf.M+d fof/k la'kks/ku vf/kfu;e 1952 ds vUrZxr cus fo'ks'k U;k;ky;ks es izdj.k dh ls'ku lqiqnZxh dks oftZr fd;k x;k gSA vf/kfu;e 1986 ds vUrZxr ,slk dksbZ izko/kku ugh fd;k x;k gS fd ls'ku Jo.kk/khu vuqlwfpr vijk/kks dks fo'ks'k U;k;ky; dks ml {kss=kf/kdkj ds eftLVsV vUoh{kk gsrq fo'ks'k U;k;ky; dks lqiqnZ djsxasA
vf/kfu;e 1986 dh /kkjk 8 ds vUrZxr fo'ks'k U;k;ky; dks /kkjk 190 n-iz-la- dh izlaKku ysus dh] /kkjk 207 n-iz-l- dh rFkk 307] 308] n-iz-la- dh eftLVsV dks 'kfDr;ka iznku dh xbZ gSA blfy, vuqlwfpr vijk/kks ds vfHk;ksx i= lh/ks gh fo'ks'k U;k;ky; bu izko/kkuks ds vUrZxr micfU/kr eftLVsV dh fo'ks'k 'kfDr;ks dk iz;ksx dj ldrk gSA
lEcfU/kr iqfyl Fkkuks }kjk vuqlwfpr vijk/kks es izFke iathd`r lwpuk,Wa tCr dh x;h lEifRr vkfn dh lwpuk;s] vfUre izfrosnu] izkbZosV ifjokn bLrxklk lh/ks vf/kfu;e 1986 ds vUrZxr xfBr U;k;ky; es gh izLrqr gksus pkfg, D;ksfd ,slk ugh gksus ls vf/kfu;e 1986 dks vf/kfu;fer djus dk mn~ns'; gh fu'Qy gks tkosxk A tcfd izLrkouk es bl vf/kfu;e dks vf/kfu;fer djus dk mn~ns'; vuqlwfpr vijk/kks dh 'kh?kz vUoh{kk fd;s tkus dk gSA ;fn eftLVsV U;k;ky;ks es ;g lHkh dk;Zokgh dh tkosxh A rks mues yEck le; yxus dh lEHkkouk jgrh gS D;ksfd vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; es yfEcr izdj.kks dh la[;k cgqr vf/kd gSA dsoy ek= fjek.M+ dkxtkr eftLVsV U;k;ky; es gksus ls gh vfHk;ksx i= mlh U;k;ky; es izLrqr fd;s tk;s vko';d ugh gSA
5. From the aforesaid findings it can be inferred that the learned Magistrate meant that under Section 8 of the Act of 1986 special procedure has been laid down for functioning of the Special Court which is identical to Section 190 Cr.P.C. and the Special Courts have also been asked to follow a similar procedure for dealing with the cases under the Act of 1986 as for trial of the Sessions cases provided the courts perform function of Magistrate under Section 207, Cr.P.C. and if the case has been committed to the court of Sessions for trial, where from a case is about scheduled offence mentioned in the Act of 1986, therefore, arises which is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the charge-sheet has to be filed directly before the Sessions Judge because firstly no special orders have been passed by learned Sessions Judge, (sic) or High Court of Rajasthan under Section 194 Cr.P.C. whereby the cases exclusively triable by Sessions court should be handed over to the special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area Hence there are no special power for making over these cases to the Special Judge for trial. Secondly, according to Section 193 Cr.P.C. no Sessions Court can take cognizance of the offence unless the case is committed to it by a Magistrate under the Code and in view of Section 8(1) of the Act of 1986 the Special Judge has been directly empowered to take cognizance and as per Section 8(2) of the Act of 1986, while starting the trial he is obliged to follow the procedure laid down for Sessions Cases under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, had the legislature meant in comminital proceedings they would not have enacted a provision like this. Thirdly, under the provisions of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 there is a bar about commitment to Special Judge, while there is no such power in the Act of 1986. Fourthly, a composite reading of Section 8 of the Act of 1986 and Section 190 Cr.P.C. 207, 307 and 308, Cr.P.C. it is clear that Special Judge has all the powers of a Magistrate and lastly that all the First Information Reports registered at police stations the information about the seized goods. Final Reports and private complaints, are, all required to be forwarded to the Special Judge else the purpose of the Act is frustrated because it would delay the proceedings due to the fact that the Magistrates are over burdened.
6. The learned Sp. Judge did not agree with the aforesaid reasonings given by learned A CJM He referred to various provisions of the Act of 1986 and considered the scheme of the Act. He also considered the provisions of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 and after comparing the provisions of the two Acts came to the conclusion that the trial of warrant case begins with the presentation of the challan, while beginning of a sessions cases is with the committal for trial. He considered that schedule of offences appended with the Act of 1986 includes warrant trials which begins as soon as the challan is presented as mentioned above. As the trial under the Act of 1986 is that a Sessions case enabling the provision has been incorporated in Section 8(1) of the Act of 1986 empowering the Special Court also to take direct cognizance for such warrant trial scheduled offences and may, where-ever necessary, perform the function of the Magistrate under Section 207, Cr.P.C. and also empower it to proceed to try the cases as if the cases have been committed to the court of Sessions for trial under the provisions of the Code Had the intention of the legislation been to empower the Special Courts to take direct cognizance in all cases irrespective of warrant or the Sessions trial cases, then the words 'whenever necessary' and 'as if would not have been incorporated in proviso under sub-ss. (I) and (2) of Section 8 of the Act of 1986. The learned Special Judge also, while interpreting sub Section (3) of Section 8 of the Act of 1986, held that this provision restricts of the Magisterial function except those which have been expressly provided for and Special Judge has been deemed to be a Sessions Judge for trial of scheduled offences.in the opinion of the Id. Judge, therefore, function of the Magistrate up to the investigation and inquiry stags shall be taken up by the Magistrate having jurisdiction over that area up to the stage of trial which would include issuance of warrants of arrest, search proclamation and attachment (except a reference from District Magistrate for disposal of property), order under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. recording of statements of the witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C. custody remands under Section 167, Cr.P.C. release of the accused under Section 169, Cr.P.C. police reports under Section 173, Cr.P.C. (except of challan of warrant trial cases in which trial would straight-way start with presentation of challan directly in Special Court in view of Section 8(1) of the Act of 1986 and the proviso therein) and complaints to the Magistrates under Section 200-203, Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judge referred to a decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in State v. Hansraj 1982 Cr. L.J. 507 and held that Special Judge is empowered to make reference under Section 395 Cr.P.C. for seeking guidance from Hon'ble High Court and he thus made this reference on the point referred to above.
7. On receipt of the aforesaid reference assistance of learned Advocate General, Add). Advocate General and other lawyers was sought and the case has been argued at great length.
8. At the out-set I may observe that while enacting the provisions of 1986 due care has not been taken as was required of the legal draftsman, with the result that ambiguities had been left in this Act. Even the definition of the Scheduled offence as given in defining Section 2 is not happily worded.
9. In order to appreciate the point referred to, it is essential to go through the scheme of the Act. In the State of Raj. there are certain Districts, particular areas of with are infested with dacoits and the offence relating to robbery, dacoity, murders with dacoity so and so-forth are rampant. In order to curb effectively the commission of such offences and which are connected with the commission of dacoity or from part of or arise out of such offences the State Government though it proper to make law:
(a) for notifying those areas as dacoity affected areas;
(b) for specifying such offences as scheduled offences;
(c) for making provisions of speedily trial and punishment thereof;
(d) for attachment of properties acquired through the commission of such offences;
(e) for any other matter connected therewith or incidental thereto.
and the law enacted is Rajasthan Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1986 which has been brought into force with effect from September 23, 1985. In this Act of 1986 Section 2 is a section giving meaning to various words, i.e., defining clause. In Section 2(1)(b) of this Act there has to be an area which may be declared by the State Government under Section 3 of the Act of 1986. The Government of Rajasthan in this respect issued a Notification No. F. 1/6 (11) Home/5/81, dated July 25, 1987 and declared the whole of the Revenue District of Dholpur (2) whole Revenue District of Bharatpur except areas covered by Tehsils Deeg, Nagar, Nadbai and Kama; and the areas covered Tehsil Karauli, Sapotara and Hindaun of Sawaimadhopur District. The Government of Rajasthan also in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 6 of the Act of 1986, in consultation with the High Court notified three Special Court one at Bharatpur another at Karauli mentioning the territorial jurisdiction of each of them vide Notification No. P 2(5) Nyaya/87, Jaipur, dated August 10, 1987. The jurisdiction of these Special Courts has been given under Section 7 of the Act of 1986 which reads as under:
Section 7-Jurisdiction of Special Court-(1) Not with standing any thing contained in the Code or in any other law for the time being in force, a scheduled offence shall be triable only by a Special Court;
(2) While trying any scheduled offence, the Special Court may also try at the same trial any offence other than the scheduled offence with which a scheduled offender may be charge under any law for the time being in force.
A reading of the aforesaid section makes it clear that the cases which are triable exclusively by the Special Courts are the scheduled offences as defined in Section 2(1)(C) of the Act of 1996 which reads as under:
Section 2(1)(c)-'Scheduled offence' in relation to a dacoity-affected area, means an offence specified in the schedule appended to this Act, including an offence forming part of, arising out of, or connected with the commission of, dacoity.'
10. When this reference came and I with the assistance of the learned Counsel for parties and learned Advocate General read the Act clause by clause I found that there are blurred areas have been left out regarding specifying the exclusive jurisdiction of the Special Court. The Act should have been drafted in a manner which should not have left the scope for giving different interpretations.
11. The Special Courts which are exclusive Courts for trying the scheduled offences, have also been empowered to try other offences than the scheduled offences with which the offender may be charged for any other law for the time being in force in case the situation arises while trying the accused for a scheduled offence but the limitation is that it should be in the same trial. Therefore, particularly the Special Judge of the Special Court has to say the scheduled offences and the offences incidental thereto. This definition of the scheduled offence is not happily warned, according to me, and is piece of defective of a statute. I have dealt with in great details this aspect of the matter in Jabbar v. State of Rajasthan 1987 WLN(UC) 599 wherein after detailed discussions I have held as under:
I am firmly of the opinion that the word 'including' mentioned in Section (c) of the Act is an erroneous phraseology used and the offence included in the schedule will only be 'scheduled offence' only when such offences forms part of, or arises out of, or is, in any way, connected with the commission of dacoity and it only those cases, Section 5 of the Act would be applicable.
The procedure and powers of such Special Courts with which we are concerned in this reference are created under Section 6 of the Act of 1986, have been given in Section 8 of the Act of 1986 which reads as under:
Section 8.-Procedure and powers of Special Courts-(1) A Special Court may take cognizance of any scheduled offence-
(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; or
(b) upon a police report of such facts; or
(c) upon information received from any person or a Police Officer, or upon its own knowledge that such offence has been committed.
(2) A special court shall, while trying a scheduled offence, follow the procedure as prescribed by the Code for the trial of a sessions case:
Provided that a special court may, where ever necessary, perform the functions of a Magistrate under Section 207 of the Code and proceed to try the case as if the case had been committed to the court of Sessions for trial under the provisions of the Code.
A perusal of Section 8 of the Act 1986 shows that it has various clauses for various purposes and, therefore, unless there is paraphrasing of the same it will be difficult to make out a scene. In Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act of 1986, Special Court has been given the same powers as have been given to a Magistrate under Section 190 Cr.P.C. in respect of a scheduled offence. I have already mentioned above that scheduled offence would mean the scheduled offences as I have interpreted in Jabbar v. State of Rajasthan 1987 WLN(UC) 599 hence the interpretation is being given keeping in mind the judgment in Jabbar v. State of Rajasthan (supra) The words used by the Legislature in this section is: (a) a special court; (b) may take cognizance, (c) of any scheduled offence. There is no difficulty about (a) and (c), but only interpretation will be required the word 'may take cognizance whether the word 'may' would exclude any other court for taking cognizance in respect of the scheduled offence or only enable the Special Court also to take cognizance i.e. to say that the Special Court as well as may other ordinary court has the jurisdiction to take cognizance in respect of scheduled offence in dacoity affected area or it is only the Special Court which can take cognizance of any scheduled offence. This has to be read along with Section 7 where exclusive jurisdiction has been given to the Special Court for trying Scheduled offences where the word 'trial shall be given such a wide interpretation so as to cover even an act of taking cognizance or an enquiry in the case. Before expressing final opinion it will be purposeful to refer to other provisions of this section also. Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act of 1986 lays down the procedure. According to this subsection while holding the trial of a scheduled offence by the Special Court the Judge shall follow the same procedure which is given in the Code of Criminal Procedure laying a Sessions Case. For trying all cases which are scheduled offence the procedure or Sessions trial as given in Code of Criminal Procedure shall be followed. How ever, the legislature added a proviso to this and, therefore, this sub-section cannot be read as a law laying down general preposition. According to the provision the Special Court has been given a discretion to perform the function of a Magistrate under Section 207 Cr.P.C. wherever necessary and if, the court chooses to perform that function.
12. Under Section 207 Cr.P.C. the Legislation has enumerated the various documents copies of which the accused is entitled to receive before the commencement of the trial in cases instituted on police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.. A duty has been cast upon a Magistrate taking cognizance to supply the copies of all such documents except volumes documents in respect of which he has competence to direct inspection thereof by the accused. He has also to see that copies of documents are furnished free of cost to the accused Thus, a provision in Code of Criminal Procedure has been incorporated regarding the cases which are tried both by the Magistrate as well as by the Court of Sessions. Separate provision has been made regarding supply of copies of statements and the documents to the accused in other cases triable by the court of Sessions which are exclusively triable by Sessions Judge. Hence in cases where charge-sheet is directly submitted before the learned Judge of the Special Court, we will also perform the function of a Magistrate under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and then himself will proceed to try the cases as if the case has been committed to his court for trial. In other words functions proceeding trial have also to be performed by him, but it is limited to the cases where his jurisdiction is about scheduled offences defined under the Act. In any cases the legislature has intended to combine the powers both of a Magistrate proceeding commitment as well as the Sessions Judge to one and the same authority, i.e. Special Judge, so as to avoid unnecessary delay, but at the same time it cannot be held that jurisdiction of a Magistrate is ousted from taking cognizance and committing the case to the court of Special Judge, as the court of Special Judge has to try the offence as per procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure for trial of a Sessions Case. Analogy of cases tried by Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act would not apply to the cases triable under this Act because the procedure to be followed by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act is that of trial of warrant case by a Magistrate as is specifically Provided for under Sub-section 3(a) as inserted in Section 3 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1992 on February 27, 1958. The learned Magistrate had taken the view the has no jurisdiction to take cognizance or handle the case pre-trial for any purpose what so ever is based on his reading the provisions of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, without comparing the Provisions of Rajasthan Dacoity affected Areas Act, 1986 with the provisions of the aforesaid Criminal Law Amendment Act or other Acts meant for trying C.B.I. cases or the provisions of Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act In all those Acts it has been absolutely clarified that both Special Judgesen joy the status of the Sessions Judge yet they are deemed to be Magistrates while trying the cases. The Special Judge at Anti Dacoity Court is a Sessions Judge for all intendments and purpose and the procedure for trial is exclusively that of a Sessions trial, though in special circumstances he has been also empowered to take cognizance of the scheduled offences Yet there is another angle with which the case can be examined The scheduled offence mentioned in the schedule attached to the Act includes cases for which warrant trial is provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure as such offences Under Sections 216A, 363, 365, 368, 369, 381, 386 IPC Similarly regarding kidnapping and abducting any parson for ransom for making or arranging or performing any part of the process and making or arranging buying, selling, possessing, disposing of, supplying or carrying arms or ammunitions or explosives for the purpose of commission of dacoity etc. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure warrant cases are not required to be committed for trial and the trial begins as soon as the challan is presented, while the trial in Sessions cases starts after commitment to the court of Sessions. In the Act of 1986 the procedure for trial as sessions trial is provided and it is for this reason that Special Judge has also been given the powers of the Magistrate under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and the word 'AB IP' mentioned therein assumes importance and therefore the phraseology may proceed to try the case as if the case has been committed to Sessions for trial under the provisions of the Code are very significant. Similarly the words 'MAY' and WHEREVER NECESSARY' used in sub Section 8(1) of the Act of 1986 are significant. If the intention of the legislature would have been that the Special Courts be empowered for taking direct cognizance in all cases, irrespective of the warrant trial or the sessions trial cases, then the word 'WHEREVER NECESSARY' and 'AS IF' would not have been incorporated in the proviso under Sub-section 8(1)(2) of the Act of 1986 and similarly Section 207, Cr.P.C. would not have been mentioned and all other provisions such as for issuance of warrant of arrest search warrants custody remands, released of the accused under Section 169 Cr.P.C. etc. would also have been mentioned.
13. As per aforesaid discussions. I am of the opinion that the Magistrates are not debarred from functioning upto the investigation and enquiry stage and they have the jurisdiction over that area upto the stage of trial includes issuance of warrants of arrest, search warrants, proclamation and attachment (except a reference from DM. for disposal of the property) Order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. regarding of statements of the witnesses under Section 164, Cr.P.C. custody remands under Section 167, Cr.P.C. release of accused under Section 169. Cr.P.C. receive police reports under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (except the charge sheet for warrant trial cases wherein trial shall straight commence with presentation of the charge-sheet in view of Section 8(1) of the Act of 1986 and the proviso thereunder), to receive complaints under Sections 200 and 203, Cr.P.C. etc.
14. In the result I accept the reference and set aside the order of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Karauli dated, May 11, 1988 and hold that the Magistrates who have jurisdiction over the dacoity affected areas are competent to perform the function in relation to the scheduled offences prior to the stage of trial before the Special Judge in the matter indicated above.