ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.

1. Prayer in this revision petition is for setting-aside the order dated 29.09.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide which, while allowing the revision filed by the respondent/complainant, the judgment of acquittal dated 03.08.2013 was set-aside and the matter was remanded back to the trial Court with a direction to afford sufficient opportunity to the prosecution as well as to the accused to examine, re-examine or cross-examine any witness and thereafter dispose of the case along with cross case, in accordance with law.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on the statement of Daljit Singh – complainant (respondent No.1 herein), FIR No.343 dated 13.12.2007 under Sections 323, 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') at Police Station Payal, Ludhiana was registered. A cross-version was also registered on the complaint lodged by the petitioner/complainant. As per the version given in the FIR, the complainant was going from his house to his tubewell in the fields and the petitioner along with others armed with sticks surrounded the complainant and caused him injuries. Thereafter, the aforesaid FIR was got registered by the complainant.

3. Thereafter, the trial Court framed the charges under Sections 323, 341 read with Section 34 IPC. In the prosecution evidence, the prosecution examined PW1 – Daljit Singh, however, his cross-examination was deferred on the request made by counsel for the accused/petitioner and later on, could not be concluded. PW2 – Dharamjit Singh and PW3 – Sonu turned hostile and later on, the evidence of the prosecution was closed by Court order on 03.08.2013. After recording, the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.'), the trial Court, holding that the prosecution has failed to examine the other witnesses and complainant has failed to turn up to face the cross-examination, both the other two eye-witnesses have turned hostile, acquitted the petitioners/accused from the charges framed against them by giving benefit of doubt vide judgment dated 03.08.2013. The Lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 29.09.2014 allowed the appeal by passing the following order:-

“13. After going through the rival contentions, beside perusing the trial Court record, the important legal point which emanated during the arguments was that the cross-case qua the same FIR was pendign and next date of the same is 13.10.2014, in which appellant Daljit Singh is accused. Ld. counsel for the appellant, produced the photocopy of the challan and stated at bar that only one witness has been examined by the prosecution in cross-case. Even the counsel for the respondents has not denied the same. On this aspect, Hon'ble Apex Court in Shir vs State of M.P. AIR 2001 SC 826, has laid down the procedure for dealing with the cross cases and has held “the practicas reasons for adopting a procedure that such cross cases shall be tried by the same Court, can be summarised thus : (I) it staves off the danger of an accused being convicted before his whole case is before the Court, (ii) It deters conflicting judgments being delivered upon similar facts: (iii) In reality the case and the counter case are, to all intents and purposes, different or conflicting versions of one incident.” However, it is always desirable, in the interests of justice, that counter cases arising out of the same incident should be tried together and judgments in both the cases should be delivered by the same Judge one after the other. Needless to say that each case must be decided on the basis of the evidence which has been placed on record in that particular case without being influenced in any manner by the evidence or arguments urged in the cross case.

14. Moreover, the argument of the ld. counsel for the respondent sans merit that every case has to be decided on its own merit. When the investigation has been done in both case together, then in order