Where the petitioner and the opposite party are fighting counter-case with reference to same occurrence it is desirable, in the ends of justice, that both the cases should be tried by the same Judge, namely, the Sessions Judge.

C.P. Sinha, J.

1. This revision is directed against the ORDER :dated 21.11.1970 in T.R. case no. 1312 of 1970 passed by the Munsif Magistrate, First Class, Deoghar revision against which to the Sessions Judge, Dumka has been summarily dismissed by the latter. This petitioner lodged first information report on 25.11.1969 at 4.15 P.M. against this opposite party (12 in number) alleging assault at their hands, at about 8 P.M. that day. The police registered a case on that basis and after investigation submitted charge-sheet under Sections 147, 148, 353 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code against these opposite party. In the Court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate the case was numbered as T.R. no. 1312 of 1970. After taking cognizance in the case the Sub-divisional Magistrate transferred it to the aforesaid Munsif Magistrate for disposal.

2. On very same day, that is, 25.11.1969 opposite party no. 2 Nagendra Nath Mandal lodged first information report with the same police station at 5.30 P.M. against this petitioner and others alleging assaults of their hands. In that case the occurrence was alleged to have taken place at about 9.30 A.M. that day. After investigation the police also submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code in this case which was registered as T.R. case no. 1313 of 1970. After taking cognizance the Sub-divisional Magistrate transferred it to the same Munsif Magistrate for disposal.

3. The Munsif Magistrate in case no. 1313 of 1970 initiated commitment proceedings under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure and evidence was led accordingly. While the commitment proceeding in that case was going on this petitioner, in his case no. 1312 of 1970, petitioned the Munsif Magistrate to hold commitment enquiry in it and commit the accused to the Court of Sessions so that both the cases which were case and counter-case relating to the same occurrence could be tried in the same court, i.e. Sessions Court. The Munsif Magistrate heard the matter and by his ORDER :dated 21.11.1970 rejected it mainly on the ground that the two cases were not in the nature of case and counter-case. His reason for this view was that the time of occurrence in the first information report was 8 A.M. whereas in the other first information report it was about 9.30 A.M. So also, the place of occurrence in the first was the cycle shop of the informant and in the other it was stated to be the miscellaneous goods shop of the informant in the case. He further found that the progress in the other case no. 1313 had already proceeded quite ahead and all that was left to be done in that case was to hold the examination of the accused persons under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code and to pass final ORDER :s after arguments whereas in the case concerned no. 1312 the charges had not yet been framed.

4. Being aggrieved with the above rejection of his prayer by the Magistrate the petitioner moved the Sessions Judge in revision with request to refer the matter to the High Court for quashing that rejection. The Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties, felt that it was not a fit case for reference to the High Court and accordingly rejected the revisional application summarily. While doing so, he, however, observed that since the two cases appeared to the case and counter-case relating to the same occurrence it was better that the same court should hear both of them and when in one case the procedure laid down under Chapter XVIII, Criminal Procedure Code, was being followed it would be in fitness of things if the same procedure was adopted in the other case as well. It is admitted before me by the petitioner that without any waiting to see the reaction of the Munsif Magistrate on the above observations of the Sessions Judge he immediately came to this Court and filed the present revision.

5. According to Mr. Choudhary S.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the