JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - These two appeals arise out of the joint trial and conviction of the Appellants in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge of Cuttack and they will be dealt with in one judgment. 2. The Appellants and twenty-nine other persons were committed for trial to the Court of Sessions for offences under Sections 147, 148,823, 426 and 448, Indian Penal Code. Some of these offences, namely those under Sections 426 and 448 were triable by Jury and the remaining offences were triable with the aid of assessors. The learned Additional Sessions Judge of Cuttack, therefore empaneled five persons as jurors for the trial of the offences under Sections 426 and 448 Indian Penal Code. Those jurors gave an unanimous verdict of "Not guilty" and the learned Judge accepted their verdict and acquitted the accused persons of those offences. The same jurors, as assessors, gave divergent opinions as regards the guilt or otherwise of the Appellants and other persons. The learned Additional Sessions Judge agreed with them in respect of some of the Appellants, but disagreed with them in respect of others. Then, without writing a proper judgment he observed that it was unnecessary for him to recapitulate all that he had mentioned in his charge to the Jury. He then convicted them under Sections 147 and 323, Indian Penal Code, and passed sentences of imprisonment. 3. The main point urged by Mr. C.M. Acharya on behalf of the Appellants is that the so called judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not a judgment in accordance with law inasmuch, as it does not conform to the provision of Section 367 of the Code Criminal Procedure. Sub-section (8) of Section 269 of the Code says that when an accused is charged at the same trial with I several offences some of which are and some of which are not triable by Jury, he shall be tried by Jury for such of those offences as are triable by Jury, and by the Court of Sessions with the aid of jurors or assessors for the remaining offences. So far as the trial by Jury is concerned the verdict of the Jury, if accepted by the Judge, concludes the matter. So far as the trial by Jury is concerned the verdict of the Jury, if accepted by the Judge, concludes the matter. So far as the trial with the aid of assessors is concerned, sub-section (2) of Section 309, Code Criminal Procedure, expressly says that, after recording the opinion of the assessors, the Judge shall then give judgment. The contents of the judgment should be in accordance with the provisions of Section 367 and the reasons for the decision of the Judge are he essential part of the judgment. It will not suffice for the learned Judge to say that he agrees with the opinion of the assessors and then proceed to convict the accused persons observing that he has fully discussed the reasons in his Charge to the Jury. 4. This point is so clear on a mere scrutiny of the relevant Sections of the Code Criminal Procedure that it is unnecessary to discuss it at some, length. I may however refer to Nirmal Kumar Bhowmik and Others Vs. Emperor,,. and two recent pronouncements of the Privy Council in A.I.R 1948 P.C. 81 and AIR 1948 P.C. 184 . Doubtless those two decisions of the Privy Council arose out of Cases from Fiji but the relevant provisions of the Fiji Code Criminal Procedure are almost identical with the corresponding provisions of our Code Criminal Procedure and the principles laid down by the Privy Council would apply with full force. 5. Hence we, must hold that the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicting the Appellants is not in accordance with law and must be set aside. 6. The next question for consideration is whether we should order a retrial or we should quash the proceedings and close the chapter. In this connection we have to observe that the incident took place in May 1954. There was a quarrel between two factions in the course of which one member of the Appellants' party namely Fagu Rout, was killed and three other persons were injured. On the side of the prosecution also some persons sustained simple injuries. In this connection we have to observe that the incident took place in May 1954. There was a quarrel between two factions in the course of which one member of the Appellants' party namely Fagu Rout, was killed and three other persons were injured. On the side of the prosecution also some persons sustained simple injuries. Two cases, one counter to the other, the first one for an offence u/s 302 Indian Penal Code against some members of the Prosecution party, and another against the present Appellants, were started by the Police, committed to the Court of Sessions' by the Committing Magistrate, and tried by the same learned Additional Sessions Judge. It appears that the murder Case against the prosecution party ended in their acquittal. The present Case would never have been committed to the Court of Sessions for trial but for the fact that its counter case was a murder case which was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Under ordinary circumstance this case would have been heard by a Magistrate and disposed of an appeal by the Sessions Judge within these two years. This case is of a petty nature and in view of the verdict of the Jury with which the learned Sessions Judge agreed it appears that a substantial part of the prosecution case was not believed by either of them. Under these circumstances we do not think this is a fit Case for further harassing the Appellants by directing are-trial We would therefore quash the entire proceedings, set aside the conviction and sentence, and direct that no fresh trial need be held. Rao, J. 7. I agree. 8. Proceedings quashed.