Special Court under POCSO Act has exclusive jurisdiction to try cases involving both POCSO and Excise Act offences.

The informant’s minor son was allegedly abducted and subjected to unnatural sex by the accused.

While the police submitted a charge-sheet under Sections 341 and 323 of the IPC, Section 37(b)(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, the Special (Excise) Court took cognizance only of the IPC and Excise Act offences, omitting the POCSO charge without assigning reasons.

The petitioner moved the High Court to quash the cognizance order, challenging both the non-application of mind and the Excise Court's jurisdiction to try a case involving POCSO offences.

1. Whether an order of cognizance is valid if it remains silent on specific offences mentioned in the police report without assigning reasons.

2. Whether a Special (Excise) Court has the jurisdiction to try offences under the POCSO Act alongside offences under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. Whether the provisions of the POCSO Act override the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act in cases of jurisdictional inconsistency.

Section 28(2) of the POCSO Act, 2012, which empowers a POCSO Special Court to try other offences with which the accused may be charged at the same trial.

Section 42A of the POCSO Act, which grants the Act overriding effect over inconsistent provisions in other laws.

Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (Sections 83, 84, and 86) lacks an "accretion" clause similar to Section 28(2) of POCSO, instead providing only for the transfer of cases to regular courts when the Excise Court lacks jurisdiction.

The Court reasoned that an order of cognizance failing to notice or provide reasons for excluding a part of the police report (specifically Section 8 of the POCSO Act) constitutes a lack of application of mind, rendering the order liable to be set aside.

On the jurisdictional point, the Court noted that unlike the POCSO Act or the NDPS Act, the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act does not grant the Special Excise Court the power to try non-Excise offences in the same trial.

Section 84(3) regarding "precedence of trial" concerns the order of proceedings, not subject-matter jurisdiction.

By virtue of Section 42A of the POCSO Act, any inconsistency between the two acts must be resolved in favor of the POCSO Act; therefore, where a single report discloses both POCSO and Excise offences, the Special POCSO Court is the proper forum.

It held that the Special (Excise) Court lacked jurisdiction to try the matter and failed to apply its mind to the charge-sheet.

The Court directed the Special (Excise) Court to transmit the record to the Special POCSO Court, Aurangabad, which shall consider the investigation materials and take fresh cognizance in accordance with the law, regardless of the specific sections stated in the original charge-sheet.