The prosecution versions in the police case and the complaint case were not materially different, contradictory and mutually exclusive and the accused were involved in the same offence arising in the course of the same transaction, therefore, it would be just and proper to have a single trial unless it would cause prejudice to the accused.

Dibyendu Bhusan Dutta, J.: The instant revisional application under s. 401 read with 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 15.6.91 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Third Court, Nadia in Cri. Motion No. 88 of 1989.

2. The facts and circumstances leading to the impugned order may, in substance, be stated as follows.

The Opposite Party No.1 Rahim Sekh, lodged an FIR with the Kaliganj Police Station on 2.9.83 making allegations against five persons over an incident that took place on 2.9.83. On the basis of the said information, Kalliganj Police Station Case No.2 dated 2.9.83 under Ss. 147/148/149/326/307/34/379 of IPC was registered. While the investigation of that case was in progress, the opposite party No.1 filed a petition of complaint on 20.9.83 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnanagar against 11 persons including the five persons against whom the FIR had already been lodged. The petition of complaint also related to the same incident for which the Kaligunj P.S. Case No.2 dated 2.9.83 was registered. The offences complained of in the petition of complaint were punishable under Ss. 147/148/149/326/307/34/379 of IPC. On the basis of the petition of complaint, complaint case No. 502C/83 was registered in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadia. The factum of initiation of the police case was not brought to the notice of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The police case was investigated and after completion of investigation of the police case, charge-sheet was submitted under Ss. 324/325/326 on 18.11.83 before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate against four out of the five persons complained against and they are petitioners Nos. 3, 4, 8 and 11. The police case was registered as G. R. 1949 of 1983 and was transferred to the Second Court of Judicial Magistrate of Krishnanagar on 18.5.84. The learned CJM took cognizance on 21.1.85 on the basis of the complaint against only two accused persons under Ss. 326/114 of the IPC and discharged the remaining nine. The present petitioners are those 11 accused persons against whom the petition of complaint was filed by the opposite party No. 1. Aggrieved by the order of discharge the opposite party No.1 preferred a motion being Cr. Motion No. 14 of 1985 before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Session Judge allowed that motion with a direction upon the CJM for reconsideration on the basis of the materials on record. The learned CJM reconsidered the materials and was pleased to issue process on 21.1.86 against all the 11 petitioners under Ss. 147/149/326 IPC. The said complaint case was numbered as TS 8 of 1986 being ready for trial. On behalf of the accused petitioners, a prayer was made before the learned CJM for withdrawal of the police case from the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Second Court and for tagging the said case with the complaint case for a single or joint trial. The learned CJM was pleased to allow this prayer by an order dated 16.8.86. Aggrieved by this order, the complainant opposite party again preferred a motion being Criminal Motion No. 99 of 1986 before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge rejected it by his order dated 14.1.97 with the observations that the two cases were required to be tried together by the same Judge in accordance with the provisions of s. 223 Cr.P.C. The learned CJM framed charges in the complaint case on 27.5.87. The learned CJM; thereafter, proceeded to take evidence in the complaint case and fixed 10.1.89 for the purpose. On 10.1.89, one witness was examined by the prosecution which was being conducted by APP appearing for the State. Further examination of witnesses was deferred to 9.6.89. On 9.6.89, three more witnesses were examined by the prosecution. On that very date, the de facto complainant filed an application praying for leave of the Court for allowing an advocate engaged by him to make some points for the prosecution. The learned CJM refu