The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for simultaneous consideration of case and counter case by the same judge to avoid conflicting judgments, as per the principles laid down by the apex court.

JUDGMENT

H.P. Sandesh, J. - This Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., challenging the judgment and order dated 10.10.2017 passed in Crl.a.No.228/2016 by the IV additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan District (Sit at Channarayapattana), questioning, set aside the judgment passed by the Trial Court on remanding the matter for fresh consideration and pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the accused persons by forming an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit the offences on 14.04.2013 at 8:00 p.m, in the coconut garden land of P.W.1 - Guruswamy at B. Chowdenahalli Village and in prosecution of such object abused P.Ws.1, 5, 2, 3 and 7 and assaulted them. P.W.2 had sustained the grievous injuries and others have sustained simple injuries and gave criminal intimidation. Hence, based on the complaint, P.W.9 registered the crime. P.W.10, investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet; the same is numbered as C.C.No.1222/2013 against the respondents herein and tried after securing their appearance. The Trial Court considering the evidence of PWs.1 to 11, documents - Exs.P1 to P6 and three material objects i.e., MOs.1 to 3, convicted respondent Nos.1 to 6, herein.

3. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction, the respondents herein have filed Crl.a.No.228/2016. The appellate Court considering the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka, by Circle Inspector of Police v. Hoskeri Ningappa and another reported in ILR 2012 KaR 509, was comes to the conclusion that when a case and counter case are registered ought to have been disposed of simultaneously by the same Judge and the same has not been done. Hence, set aside the judgment of conviction passed in the criminal case and directed to decide the said case along with counter case in C.C.No.1378/2013 in accordance with the decision in Hoskeri Ningappa's case (supra). Hence, the present revision petition is filed before this Court contending that the very order impugned is not in accordance with the judgment in Hoskeri Ningappa's case (supra). The appellate Court had not applied his mind and failed to take note of the fact that during the course of whole trial; the accused in that case never took the defense and insisted for simultaneous disposal of the case and counter case.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that during the course of trial, the accused side even not suggested the witness, who have been examined regarding pending of counter case and also not cross-examined the witnesses on the point of aggressor. In 313 statement accused side not stated anything about the counter case and even not confronted any documents pertaining to the counter case. The learned counsel also would vehemently contend that the judgment in Hoskeri Ningappa's case (supra), referred by the appellate Court, is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. This Court in the said judgment categorically held that under Section 465(2) of Cr.P.C., not violates disposal of the case. It is contended that earliest point of time not raised the said objection and kept quiet deliberately and took up the said argument for the first time before the appellate Court.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6 would submit that it is not in dispute that two cases are registered; the police have investigated the matters and filed the charge-sheets; one was filed in the year 2014 and another was filed in the year 2015. The learned counsel also would submit that the charges were framed based on the different charge-sheets filed. Further, the learned counsel would contend that the same aPP was in-charge while framing the charges in both the cases. P.W.1 was examined in the year 2015. The learned counsel also would submit that in the cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2, a suggestion was made that