Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the trial of "case and counter case" (or cross cases) under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

• Jurisdiction of Sessions Court: A Sessions Judge possesses the power to try any offence under the Indian Penal Code; it is not a requirement that the offence be exclusively triable by a Sessions Court (!) (!) .
• Discretion vs. Obligation: When a case involving an offence not exclusively triable by the Sessions Court is committed to the Sessions Court, the Judge has discretion to continue the trial. The use of "may" in Section 228(1)(a) indicates that transferring such a case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate is not mandatory (!) .
• Handling Cross Cases: If a "case and counter case" are committed to the Sessions Court (one involving an exclusively triable offence and the other not), the Sessions Judge should try both cases himself rather than transferring the second case to the Magistrate (!) .
• Procedural Requirement for Cross Cases: The fair procedure for cross cases arising from the same incident is for the same Judge to try both cases sequentially. The Judge must record evidence and hear arguments in the first case but reserve the judgment; subsequently, he must do the same for the second case. Finally, both judgments must be pronounced by the same Judge on the same day (!) .
• Independence of Evidence: In deciding each case, the Judge must rely solely on the evidence recorded in that specific case. Evidence from the cross case cannot be looked into, nor can the Judge be influenced by arguments or evidence from the other case (!) .
• Commitment Mechanism: While the Magistrate is legislatively compelled by Section 209 to commit the primary case to the Sessions Court, they can also commit the cross case (even if it lacks exclusively triable offences) under Section 323. Once committed under either section, Chapter XVIII of the Code governs the subsequent flow (!) .
• Rationale for Joint Trial: Trying cross cases together prevents conflicting judgments on similar facts, avoids convicting an accused before their entire case is heard, and acknowledges that these cases are essentially conflicting versions of a single incident (!) .