The main legal point established in the judgment is that for clubbing cases under S.210 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is enough that cognizance is taken by the Magistrate of any offence against any accused in the complaint case on the report of the Police who investigated the occurrence which led to the complaint case.

1. The short point that arises for consideration is whether for the clubbing for trial of a complaint case and the case arising out of the Police report under S.210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, is it enough if the complaint case and the Police charge relate to the same occurrence or is it necessary that the offences taken cognizance of in both must be identical, when the other conditions insisted by the section are satisfied. The complainant in C.C.1935 of 1978 before the Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class, Ernakulam is the revision petitioner and respondents 1, 3 and 4 the accused therein. The occurrence took place at 10.30 a. m. on 15-1-1978. The matter was reported to the Cochin Cusba Police Station and Crime No. 13 of 1978 was registered against respondents 3 and 4 only. As the respondent No. 1, who is a Police Constable, was left out, the petitioner filed a complaint as C. C. 75 of 1978 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Cochin. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of all the offences mentioned in the complaint and that too against all the accused. The case was later transferred to the Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class, Ernakulam and renumbered as C. C. 1935 of 1978 Crime No. 13 of 1978 was investigated and only respondents 3 and 4 were charge-sheeted and that too for only some of the offences mentioned in the complaint. That case filed as S.T. 505 of 1978 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Cochin was transferred to the Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class, Ernakulam and renumbered as C. C. 307 of 1979. The petitioner filed Crl. M. P. 217 of 1980 in C. C. 1935 of 1978 for clubbing the complaint case with the Police charge case for trial. That was allowed by the learned Magistrate. The 1st respondent in this revision challenged the above order before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam in Crl R P 32 of 1980. The Second Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Magistrate. In this revision the petitioner-complainant has challenged the above order of the Sessions Judge

2. The Sessions Judge has given two reasons for interfering with the order for clubbing the two cases passed by the Magistrate. They are: (1) For the application of S.210 it is absolutely necessary that in the first instance there should be a private complaint before the Court during the pendency of which it is brought to the notice of the Court that Police investigation is pending in respect of the same offence. It is only after the filing of the Police report that the complaint in this case was filed. To such a situation S.210 cannot be applied; and (2) The offences in respect of which investigation was carried on by the Police are not identical with the offences alleged by the 2nd respondent in his private complaint. Unless they are identical, S.210 will not have any application and an order for clubbing both the cases under S.210(2) is not permissible at all.

3. The first of the above two reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge is based on a mistake of fact. The private complaint was filed on 7-2-1978 and the Magistrate took cognizance of the same on 7-2-1978 itself. The charge sheet though dated 30-1-1978 was filed in Court only on 31-3-1978 by the Police. So, it goes without saying that the private complaint was pending when the report was made to the Court by the Police after investigation. So, for the reason given by the Sessions Judge, clubbing of the two cases for trial cannot be denied.

4. Then the further question is whether the clubbing can be had only if the offences taken cognizance of in the complaint case and in the case arising out of the Police report are identical. S.210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for short the Code, reads:

"210. Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence. (1) When in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to