Koshy, J.

The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.148/2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Kannur. The said case was charge-sheeted by the Kannur Town Police Station alleging offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 506 (II) of Indian Penal Code. Subsequently the de facto complainant preferred a private complaint against the petitioner in respect of the very same incident alleging offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 326, 452 and 506 (II) of Indian Penal Code. The said private complaint stands committed to the Court of Sessions, Thalassery as per order dated 9-5-2006 and pending as C.P.22/2006. However, the case charge-sheeted by the police, i.e., C.C.No. 148/2006 is still pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Kanpur. Therefore, this Transfer Petition is filed for transferring C.C.No.148/2006 to the Court of Sessions, Thalassery.

2. When the case came up for admission the learned Single Judge felt that there is conflict with two decisions of this Court—(1) Santhosh v. State of Kerala (2006 (3) K.L.T. 439) and (2) State of Kerala v. Annamma (2003 (2) K.L.T. 763). In Annamma's case it was held that the High Court has got jurisdiction to direct the Magistrate to commit the case to the Court of Sessions for trial by virtue of the powers conferred on it under Section 407(1) (iii) of Criminal Procedure Code but categorically held that the Court of Sessions has no such power. In Santhosh's case (supra) another learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the Sessions Court and not the High Court is vested with the power to transfer a case pending before the Magistrate's Court to the Sessions Court under Section 408(1) read with Section 407(1) (iii) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, in Santhosh's case (supra) the learned Single Judge rejected the application filed under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. holding that since the party has not approached the Sessions Court, they cannot file a transfer application before High Court. There is no dispute to the proposition that case, counter case and connected cases arising out of the same incident are to be tried by the same court on the same day one by one to avoid conflict of decisions. On the facts of this case before us it is admitted that both cases, that is police case and case charged on the basis of private complaint based on the very same set of facts should be tried by the same court. In Sudhir v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2001 A.I.R. S.C.W. 491) it was held by the Apex Court that case and counter case relating to the same incident should be tried by the same court. In that case, case and counter case were committed to the Sessions Court. Sessions Court found that one of those cases involved offence not exclusively triable by Sessions Court and sent back that case to the Magistrate Court. Supreme Court held that Sessions Court should try both cases as Sessions Court has power to try any offence under Penal Code. Apex Court held as follows:

"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."

Apex Court at paragraph 10 it was held the reasons for such a trial as follows:

"(1) It staves off the danger of an accused being convicted before his whole case is before the Court. (2) It deters conflicting judgments being delivered upon similar facts; and (3) In reality the case and counter case are, to all intents and purposes, different or conflicting versions of one incident."

In Nathi Lai v. State of U.P. (1990 Supp. S.C.C. 145) Apex Court prescribed the procedure to be followed in such a situation as follows:

"We think that the fair procedure to adopt in a matter like the present where there are cross cases, is to direct that the same learned Judge must try both cross cases one after the other. After the recording of the evidence in one case is completed, he must hear the arguments but he must reserve the judgment. Thereafter he