The court emphasized the need for trying and disposing of two different versions of the same incident by the same court and clarified the discretionary power of the Sessions Judge in transferring cases for trial.

1. 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 S.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.

4. 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 S.307 read with S.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.

5. In the Sessions Court the first case was taken up under S.227 of the Code and the Court framed charge against the accused for offences under S.307 read with Ss.149,147 and 427 IPC. When the preliminary arguments in the second case were heard under S.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 change as envisaged in S.228 (1) (a) of the Code for the offence under S.324 read with S.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 S.228 (1) of the Code.

6. The accused in the first case moved the High Court in revision contending that no offence under S.307 IPC is made out against them and further contended that the court should have included the offence under S.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 S.307 IPC has not been framed in the counter case, the petitioners do not become entitled to be discharged for the offence under S.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".

7. 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 S.307 IPC as against the accused in the second case. The said revision petition was separately dealt with by the High Court and the same learned Single Judge dismissed the said revision on the same by a separate order. He made the following reasoning:

"The facts in the counter case warr