IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1957 of 2011 RAM BALI MAHTO AND ORS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. ----------- 2. 27.01.2011. Heard. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the Magistrate ought not have summoned the petitioner for committing the offence under Section 3(ii) SC and ST(Prevention of Atrocities)Act. The trial by a court of Sessions which is one of the courts to be designated as special court in the light of the provisions of the Act has always to act as per the provisions contained in the Cr.P.C. in respect of trials before the court of Sessions. If a court considers the provisions of Section 228 of the Cr.P.C. then it may come to a conclusion that its jurisdiction to try an offence created by the provision of that particular chapter arises only when an offence exclusively triable by that particular court appears made out from materials presented before it. As such, the need of a deeper consideration of the materials when the court is proceeding to frame a charge or is hearing the parties 2 under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. This opportunity is yet to be availed of by the petitioners. He will approach the court below and raise the issue even without filing a petition and the court believes that as it is the part of the duty of the court as regards hearing under Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C., it shall consider the contention and pass a detailed speaking order. With the above observations, this petition is dismissed. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha,J.)