VERY IMPORTANT POINTS
1. A Sessions Judge has the power to try any offence under the Indian Penal Code. It is not necessary for the Sessions Court that the offence should be one exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions.
2. When a case and counter case have been committed to the Sessions Court and one of those cases involves an offence exclusively triable by the Sessions Court and the other does not involve any such offence, the Sessions Judge can himself try both the cases.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 228 r/w Section 26-Powers of Sessions Court-Case and counter case-One case exclusively triable by Sessions Court-Second case triable by Magistrate-Sessions Court after framing changes on second case transferring it to Chief Judicial Magistrate Court-Not correct-Sessions Judge has power to try any offence under IPC-It is not mandatory that he should transfer case to Magistrate after framing charges-Sessions Judge should not have transferred second case to Chief Judicial Magistrate-He should try both cases one after another and deliver two separate judgments.
       It is a salutary practice, when two criminal cases relate to the same incident, they are tried and disposed of by the same court by pronouncing judgments on the same day. Such two different versions of the same incident resulting in two criminal cases are compendiously called "case and counter case" by some High Courts and "cross cases" by some other High Courts. (Para 8)
       When a magistrate has committed a case on account of his legislative compulsion by Section 209, its cross case, having no offence exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, must appear to the magistrate as one which ought to be tried by the same Court of Sessions. We have already adverted to the sturdy reasons why it should be so. Hence the magistrate can exercise the special power conferred on him by virtue of Section 323 of the Code when he commits the cross case also to the Court of Sessions. Commitment under Section 209 and 323 might be through two different channels, but once they are committed there subsequent flow could only be through the stream channelised by the provisions contained in Chapter XVIII. (Para 13)
       A Sessions Judge has the power to try any offence under the Indian Penal Code. It is not necessary for the Sessions Court that the offence should be one exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions. This power of the Sessions Court can be discerned from a reading of Section 26 of the Code. When it is realised that the Sessions Judge has the power to try any offence under the Indian Penal Code and when a case involving offence not exclusively triable by such court is committed to the Court of Sessions, the Sessions Judge has to exercise a discretion regarding the case which he has to continue for trial in his court and the case which he has to transfer to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. For this purpose we have to read and understand the scope of Section 228(1) in the light of the above legal position. (Para 15)
       The employment of the word "may" at one place and the word "shall" in Section 28(1) at another place in the same sub-section unmistakably indicates that when the offence is not triable exclusively by the Sessions Court it is not mandatory that he should order transfer of the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate after framing a charge. In situations where it is advisable for him to try such offence in his court there is no legal obligation to transfer the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. One of the instances for not making the transfer is when a case and counter case have been committed to the Sessions Court and one of those cases involves an offence exclusively triable by the Sessions Court and the other does not involve any such offence. (Para 16)
       In the present case, the Sessions Judge ought not have transferred the second case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate as he did, but he himself should have tried it in the manner indicated in Nathi Lal s case, 1990 (Supp.) SCC 145. To facilitate such a procedure to be adopted we have to set aside the order passed by the Sessions Judge in the second case. We direct the Sessions Court concerned to try and dispose of the first case and the second case in the manner set out in Nathi Lal s case (supra). (Para 17 & 18)

Judgement Key Points

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 (!) .

JUDGMENT

Thomas, J.-Leave granted.

2. A grey area is sought to be replenished with a judicial pronouncement. A case and counter case, both were committed to the Court of Sessions as both cases involve offences triable exclusively by Sessions Court. But after hearing the preliminary arguments the Sessions Judge felt that in one case no offence triable exclusively by a Court of Sessions is involved, whereas in the other case a charge for offences including one triable exclusively by the Sessions Court could be framed. Is it necessary, in such a situation, that the Sessions Court should transfer the former case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, for trial as envisaged in Section 228(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code ). This is the core issue which has come up to the fore in these appeals.

3. For understanding the question better it is necessary to have a short resume of the facts.

An encounter took place on the night of 18.2.1996, at a particular place near Bhitar Bazar, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, in which firearms and other weapons were used and persons were injured. The details of the incident are not relevant and hence skipped. Two rival versions reached the police station regarding the above incident and two First Information Reports were registered upon those rival versions by the officer-in-charge of the police station. FIR No. 92 of 1996 was registered against 24 persons arrayed in it as accused (for convenience this can be referred to as the first case ) and FIR No. 93 of 1996 was registered against six persons (this can be referred to as the second case for convenience). Both cases were investigated together by the police and ultimately challans were laid in both cases alleging offences under Section 307 read with Section 149 besides some other offences of the Indian Penal Code in both the cases. The Magistrate before whom the challans were filed completed the inquiry proceedings and committed both cases to the Sessions Court for trial. Thus far the two cases flocked together side by side.

4. In the Sessions Court the first case was taken up under Section 227 of the Code and the court framed charge against the accused for offences under Section 307 read with Sections 149, 147 and 427 IPC. When the preliminary arguments in the second case were heard under Section 227 of the Code the Sessions Judge found that no offence triable exclusively by a Court of Sessions need be included in the charge and hence he framed a charge as envisaged in Section 228(1)(a) of the Code for the offence under Section 324 read with Section 149 and certain other counts of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter he transferred the second case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate as provided in Section 228(1) of the Code.

5. The accused in the first case moved the High Court in revision contending that no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out against them and further contended that the court should have included the offence under Section 307 IPC also in the charge framed in the second case. A Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the revision petition by order dated 30.6.2000, in which the learned Judge observed, inter alia, thus :

"The charge in each criminal case is framed on the basis of materials available in the records of that particular case. Merely because the charge for offence under Section 307 IPC has not been framed in the counter case, the petitioners do not become entitled to be discharged for the offence under Section 307 IPC, if they are otherwise liable to be charged for the offence under that section in view of the materials placed before the learned Judge."

6. In the meanwhile, the State of Madhya Pradesh moved the High Court in revision challenging the order by which the Sessions Court declined to frame charge under Section 307 IPC as against the accused in the second case. The said revision petition was separately dealt with by the High Court and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document