The court emphasized the importance of trying and disposing of cases related to the same incident by the same court on the same day, and the need for separate judgments for cross cases.

Having met with a situation that Two sets of accused persons committed different categories of offence in the same transaction and two separate police cases were registered and investigated and on completion of the investigation, the police reports chargesheeting the respective accused persons were filed. But the said case and counter case were not tried separately. Eventually, against the respective judgments of conviction and acquittal, as would be elaborated in the latter part of this judgment, two revision petitions under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the I.P.C. have been preferred being Crl. Rev. P. No.102 of 2007 by Smt. Marani Nama, against the judgment and order dated 30.06.2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No.09(2) of 2007 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura on setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Belonia, South Tripura in case No. GR 90 of 2006, and another criminal revision being Crl. Rev.P. No.103 of 2007 by Sri Dulal Nama and Sri Ranjit Nama, against the judgment and order dated 30.06.2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No.10(2) of 2007 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura whereby the judgment of conviction and order dated 17.05.2007 delivered in case No.GR 89 of 2006 by the Judicial Magistrate, Belonia, South Tripura has been affirmed against the revisional petitioners, but all the accused persons, the revisional petitioners in Crl.Rev.P. No. 102 of 2007 and Crl.Rev.P. No. 103 of 2007 have been acquitted from the charge under Section 323 of the I.P.C. resulting in the acquittal of the revisional petitioners in Crl. Rev. P. No.102 of 2007 but against the said judgment and order dated 30.06.2007 delivered in Criminal Appeal No.10(2) of 2007 neither the State nor the defecto complainant has preferred any further action and as such, so far the acquittal of the revisional petitioner in Crl.Rev.P. No. 102 of 2007 is concerned, it has reached to its finality.

[2] There is no dispute that the trial for GR case No.89 of 2006 and GR case No.90 of 2006 were not taken up simultaneously but it appears that the appeals from the respective judgments of the trial court were heard simultaneously by the Addl. Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia.

[3] Mr. S. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl. Rev. P. No. 102 of 2007 has submitted that for not holding the trial simultaneously of those cases, the accused respondents have taken the advantage thereof as the fact as regards to the transaction of the offence could not be appreciated by the trial court in its totality. Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel has further submitted that even though the arguments were heard together, the trial did not take place simultaneously. For buttressing his submission in this regard, he has referred to the records of the trial court to show that there is no order to hold the trial simultaneously. But this Court finds that by the order dated 09.11.2006 the trial court passed the order, interalia, that:

“On the other hand, learned defence counsel submitted that in respect of the same incident the accused persons also instituted a case against the complainant and others vide case No.GR 89 of 2006 which is also pending before this Court for trial. Therefore, he prayed for analogous trial of both the cases.

Heard, Considered.

Prayer for Ld. APP is allowed.

Issue fresh summons upon the rest witnesses including Dr. J.S. Reang, MO Jolaibari PHC through the CMO, South Tripura, Udaipur.

This Court has no knowledge about the case No.GR 89/06. Therefore, the instant case may be fixed on 16.11.2006 for passing necessary order in respect of the prayer of the learned defence counsel.

Fix 16.11.2006 for order.”

On 16.11.2006, the following order was passed by the trial Judge:

“Both the accused on bail are present. Ld. APP is present.

Heard both sides in respect of petition filed on behalf of the accused.

Considering all pleas I find no merit on the petiti