JUDGMENT Kaul, J. - Sangam Lal is a cloth dealer of Jokhwa bazar, police station Bhinga, in the district of Bahraich. On the 13th of September, 1945, he made an application to the District Supply Officer alleging that an unknown person, who represented himself to be a "piece goods Inspector", accompanied by police constable Nasir Khan, went to his shop and extorted some money from him. The District Supply Officer made an inquiry, recorded that statement of certain persons and submitted the application made by Sangam Lal to the District Magistrate with the recommendation that the Superintendent of Police be requested to take necessary action. This report is dated the 17th of September, 1945. There is a note on the Supply Officer's report by the District Magistrate "to S.P. for necessary action against Nasir Khan constable." The Superintendent of Police entrusted the matter to one of his circle Inspectors with the direction that a report be made after careful inquiry. On the 8th of October, 1945, Sangam Lal, who appears to have been dissatisfied with what the police were doing, filed a complaint in the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Sections 384 and 342 of the Indian Penal Lode against Nasir Khan. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate examined Sangam Lal and then called for a report from the Superintendent of Police (presumably u/s 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). On the 4th of January, 1946, a charge sheet was submitted by the police, apparently in connection with the incident referred to in Sangam Lal's complaint. Only one person -Bhagoley alias Rahim Bakhsh-was mentioned therein as an accused. I find from the record a report of the same date, made by the same police officer who has signed this charge sheet, (N. Singh C.I.) headed: Report on the inquiry relating to the complaint, Sangum Lal v. Nasir Khan u/s 384/342 Indian Penal Code. 2. The report concludes: in my opinion all the allegations made against the constable in his complaint are not fully proved. 3. It would thus appear, in view of the charge sheet submitted on the 4th of January, and this report u/s 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that as a result of the police investigation no case could be made out against Nasir Khan. 3. It would thus appear, in view of the charge sheet submitted on the 4th of January, and this report u/s 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that as a result of the police investigation no case could be made out against Nasir Khan. Surprising as it may appear, however, just a few days after, on the 12th of January, 1946, what appears to be a supplementary charge sheet in connection with the one submitted on the 4th of January, 1946, was submitted by the police officer (N. Singh C.I.) in which constable Nasir Khan was mentioned as an accused. The supplementary charge sheet was considered by the Magistrate on the 18th of January 1945, and a cash was registered on its basis. The case was fixed for the 2nd of the February, 1945. On the 2nd of February, the Magistrate passed an order that both the cases whereof cognizance was taken by him, the one on Sangam Lal's complaint, and the other whereof cognizance was taken under the two charge sheets submitted by the police as they related to the same incident, be tried together. Sangam Lal took serious objection to this procedure. His apprehension was-, and he did not make a secret of it-that the local police were trying to shield Nasir Khan. As was clear from the report submitted by N. Singh on the 4th of January, 1946, it exonerated that accused. It was further averred on his behalf that in the charge sheet submitted on the 4th of January, 1946, the police had named a number of persons as witnesses who were not present at the time of the occurrence. The suggestion was that they had deliberately introduced these witnesses in order to spoil Sangam Lal's case against Nasir Khan. Sangam Lal prayed that his case might be kept serrate from the case whereof cognizance was taken by the Magistrate on the charge sheets submitted by the police. His application was rejected. He went in revision before the Sessions Judge, but the Magistrate's order was confirmed. Accordingly he has come to this Court. 4. The following extract from the order of the Magistrate shows how he approached the matter: It appears that Sangam Lal filed an application before the District Supply Officer on the 13th of September, 1945, against Nasir Khan constable and one unknown person making certain allegations against them. Accordingly he has come to this Court. 4. The following extract from the order of the Magistrate shows how he approached the matter: It appears that Sangam Lal filed an application before the District Supply Officer on the 13th of September, 1945, against Nasir Khan constable and one unknown person making certain allegations against them. The D.S.O in his own capacity as Supply Officer after satisfying himself reported the matter to the District Magistrate who sent the case to S.P. for proper action. This was done on the 19th of September, 1945. The District Magistrate thus ordered the police to take cognizance if the case. The police took record of the complainant and investigated the case and proceeded in regular way. In the meantime on the 8th of October, 1945, Sangam Lal filed a complaint in proper Court It us follows that the challan case should proceed and that both the cases should he amalgamated as they were in respect of the tame facts. 5. It is dear that the Magistrate had taken cognizance of Sangam Lal's complaint when it was presented on the 8th of October, 1915. He examined Sangam Lal on oath (under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) and then called for a report from the Superintendent of Police, presumably u/s 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At that time there was to case whereof cognizance was taken by the Magistrate against Bbagoley or Nasir Khan. It is true that investigation was being made by the police on the basis of the application made by Sangam Lal to the District Supply Officer. It was about three months after, on the 4th of January, 1946. that a charge sheet against Bbagoley was submitted. The police report, which is also dated the 4th of January, 1946, exonerated Nasir Khan. I was open t0 the Magistrate if he was, on considering the police report and the statement on oath mace by Sangam Lal, satisfied that there were no sufficient grounds for proceedings against Nasir Khan to dismiss the complaint. But obviously this was not the case. On the other hand he appears to be of 0Pinlon that the case against Nasir Khan should be proceded with. This is clear from the following order passed by him on the back of the police report. Case against Nasir Khan has already been fixed for the 2nd February, 946. But obviously this was not the case. On the other hand he appears to be of 0Pinlon that the case against Nasir Khan should be proceded with. This is clear from the following order passed by him on the back of the police report. Case against Nasir Khan has already been fixed for the 2nd February, 946. Complainant be informed to produce his evidence on that date and to Simon his witnesses. 6. The peculiar circumstances of the case have given rise to a somewhat difficult situation. With regard to the same incident there was a complaint made by Sangam Lal against Nasir Khan who, according to him, was the main culprit According to the police investigation Bhagoley was the culprits, and the case against Nasir Khan was not made cut. Subsequently, however, the police submitted a charge sheet challenging Nasir Khan also. According, to Sangam Lal the charge sheet submitted by the police against Bhagoley included the names of a number of persons among witnesses who were not present at the time of the occurrence. Rightly or wrongly he believed that this was a device adopted by the police with the definite object of spoiling the case against Nasir Khan whom they wanted to shield. It cannot be said that this apprehension was altogether groundless. I do not say that this was true. If the two cafes, that initiated on Sangam Lal's complaint, and the case whereof cognizance was taken on the police charge sheet are tried together, a difficult situation may arise. The Magistrate has directed by his order dated 5th of February, 1946, that the prosecuting Inspector should examine the witnesses in support of the police case and Sangam Lal "will be at liberty to produce any additional evidence which he may like to produce. "Both these sets of witnesses will be witnesses for the prosecution, and if Sargam Lal's allegation, that some of the witnesses named in the police charge sheet have been included therein with the definite object of spoiling the case against Nasir Khan be correct, the Magistrate may have before him two sets of prosecution witnesses contracting each other. Sangam Lal will have no right to cross-examine the witnesses who he alleges have been included to spoil the case against Nasir Khan. Sangam Lal will have no right to cross-examine the witnesses who he alleges have been included to spoil the case against Nasir Khan. There is no legal bar to the Magistrate trying separately the two accused against whom cognizance of an offence has been taken in relation to the same matter. In the case of Reddivari Narasimha Reddi v. Emperor 1933 M.W.N. 916 an inquiry against certain accused had begun and the sub-inspector of police sent a letter as a supplementary charge sheet to add another person as an accused and the sub-Magistrate passed an order adding him as an accused, ordering do novo trial. It was held that there was no provision of law by which the sub-Magistrate could add a person as accused after the inquiry had begum, and the order was set aside. The sub-Magsttate, it was held could consider the sub-Inspector's letter as a police report within the meaning of Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and take the case on file as a separate case against the Petitioner. Though the facts of that case were materially different from those of the case before me, the decision clearly shows that there is no bar to the two accused persons who are alleged to be concerned in the same offence being tried separately. I am clearly of opinion that under the special circumstances of this case the Magistrate would have exercised a wiser discretion if he had kept the two cases separate. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for "amalgamation or consolidation" of cases, and as there is an apprehension that the two cases, if tried together, might result in injustice, I accept the revision application and direct that the case initiated by Sangam Lal's complaint dated the 8th of October, 1945, be tried separately from the case whereof cognizance was taken by the Magistra'e on the charge sheet first submitted by the police. 7. With regard to the charge sheet dated the 12th of January, 1946, by which Nasir Khan was challenged, it may be observed that with regard to the accused cognizance of the commission of an offence had been taken by the Magistrate upon Sangam Lal's complaint Accordingly it was unnecessary to again register a case against him on the basis of the supplementary charge sheet. A charge sheet is nothing more than a report in writing of the facts of an offence referred to in Section 190(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If cognizance of an offence has already been taken by a Magistrate, and a charge sheet with regard to it is submitted by the police after such cognizance has been taken, it is not obligatory upon the Magistrate to register a case on the basis of that charge sheet separately. In view of the faces that appear from the record before me, I consider it desirable that the two cases should be tried by different Magistrates. If they are tried by the same Magistrate it is possible he may find at the close of the trials that the evidence led at one trial conflicts with that led at the other. Such a situation cannot but be embarrassing. The directions a to separate trials will avoid such a possibility. 8. The record shall be returned to the District Magistrate Bacharach with the direction that he might either transfer the case initiated by Sangam Lal's complaint to his own file or to the file of some other senior Magistrate in the district other than Mr. Sultan Hasan Khan who will try the case whereof cognizance has been taken on the charge sheet submitted by the police on the 4th of January, 1946.