JUDGMENT : C.P. Sinha, J. 1. This revision is directed against the ORDER :dated 21.11.1970 in T.R. case no. 1312 of 1970 passed by the Munsif Magistrate, First Class, Deoghar revision against which to the Sessions Judge, Dumka has been summarily dismissed by the latter. This petitioner lodged first information report on 25.11.1969 at 4.15 P.M. against this opposite party (12 in number) alleging assault at their hands, at about 8 P.M. that day. The police registered a case on that basis and after investigation submitted charge-sheet under Sections 147, 148, 353 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code against these opposite party. In the Court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate the case was numbered as T.R. no. 1312 of 1970. After taking cognizance in the case the Sub-divisional Magistrate transferred it to the aforesaid Munsif Magistrate for disposal. 2. On very same day, that is, 25.11.1969 opposite party no. 2 Nagendra Nath Mandal lodged first information report with the same police station at 5.30 P.M. against this petitioner and others alleging assaults of their hands. In that case the occurrence was alleged to have taken place at about 9.30 A.M. that day. After investigation the police also submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code in this case which was registered as T.R. case no. 1313 of 1970. After taking cognizance the Sub-divisional Magistrate transferred it to the same Munsif Magistrate for disposal. 3. The Munsif Magistrate in case no. 1313 of 1970 initiated commitment proceedings under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure and evidence was led accordingly. While the commitment proceeding in that case was going on this petitioner, in his case no. 1312 of 1970, petitioned the Munsif Magistrate to hold commitment enquiry in it and commit the accused to the Court of Sessions so that both the cases which were case and counter-case relating to the same occurrence could be tried in the same court, i.e. Sessions Court. The Munsif Magistrate heard the matter and by his ORDER :dated 21.11.1970 rejected it mainly on the ground that the two cases were not in the nature of case and counter-case. The Munsif Magistrate heard the matter and by his ORDER :dated 21.11.1970 rejected it mainly on the ground that the two cases were not in the nature of case and counter-case. His reason for this view was that the time of occurrence in the first information report was 8 A.M. whereas in the other first information report it was about 9.30 A.M. So also, the place of occurrence in the first was the cycle shop of the informant and in the other it was stated to be the miscellaneous goods shop of the informant in the case. He further found that the progress in the other case no. 1313 had already proceeded quite ahead and all that was left to be done in that case was to hold the examination of the accused persons under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code and to pass final ORDER :s after arguments whereas in the case concerned no. 1312 the charges had not yet been framed. 4. Being aggrieved with the above rejection of his prayer by the Magistrate the petitioner moved the Sessions Judge in revision with request to refer the matter to the High Court for quashing that rejection. The Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties, felt that it was not a fit case for reference to the High Court and accordingly rejected the revisional application summarily. While doing so, he, however, observed that since the two cases appeared to the case and counter-case relating to the same occurrence it was better that the same court should hear both of them and when in one case the procedure laid down under Chapter XVIII, Criminal Procedure Code, was being followed it would be in fitness of things if the same procedure was adopted in the other case as well. It is admitted before me by the petitioner that without any waiting to see the reaction of the Munsif Magistrate on the above observations of the Sessions Judge he immediately came to this Court and filed the present revision. 5. According to Mr. Choudhary S.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the available materials there can be no manner of doubt that both these cases relate to the same occurrence and the two cases are nothing but version and counter version of the same incident. 5. According to Mr. Choudhary S.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the available materials there can be no manner of doubt that both these cases relate to the same occurrence and the two cases are nothing but version and counter version of the same incident. The slight difference in their timings and site of assault, as alleged, is not sufficient to treat them as relating to two separate and unconnected occurrences. In this view of the matter, in his submission, it would be proper and in the ends of justice that both of them are tried in the same court and when in one the commitment procedure has been adopted, in the other also this should be done. 6. In support of his above submissions, Mr. Mishra has cited (1) Hasim Mian V. Sunder Paswan (1970 P.L.J.R. 236) where his Lordship, relying upon Madras decision in (2) Thota Ramakrishnayya and others V. The State (A.I.R. 1954 Mad 442) has held that where the petitioner and the opposite party are fighting counter-case with reference to same occurrence it is desirable, in the ends of justice, that both the cases should be tried by the same Judge, namely, the Sessions Judge. 7. On behalf of the opposite party, learned counsel Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, opposes the claim for commitment enquiry in this case on the ground that it is a separate case altogether having no connection with the offence in the other case no. 1313 of 1970 and both are independent cases. He has placed reliance upon (3) Arjun Singh V. Gangotri Singh (A.I.R. 1956 Pat 530) where it has been held that the rule that counter-cases should ordinarily be tried by one and the same court is not a rule which is or can conveniently be universally adhered to; the rule is one of convenience and provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be ignored in ORDER :to give effect to it. It may be mentioned that during his consideration of the above case (1970 P.L.J.R. 236) authority (A.I.R. 1956 Pat 530) was also before the learned Judge and he duly considered it on its facts. 8. Considering the two cases in the light of their facts there seems little doubt that they are regarding the same occurrence. It may be mentioned that during his consideration of the above case (1970 P.L.J.R. 236) authority (A.I.R. 1956 Pat 530) was also before the learned Judge and he duly considered it on its facts. 8. Considering the two cases in the light of their facts there seems little doubt that they are regarding the same occurrence. The slight variation in the facts alleged in their first information reports regarding times and places are not sufficient to make them two separate cases having no connection with each other. A close examination of the first information reports will show that they are case and counter-case of the same incident. In their such background it will, I think, be expedient and in the interest of justice that, if their trial is to take place, it must be in the same court, i.e. Sessions Court. As it is pointed out the other case no. 1313 has already-been committed to the Court of Sessions about a month ago. In the instant case, it is said, evidence has not as yet begun. In view of this fact none of the parties is likely to suffer in any way if this case no. 1312 is dealt with as a commitment enquiry and necessary ORDER :s made committing the accused persons, if in course of the enquiry evidence comes to commit them for trial. If during that enquiry the Magistrate finds no material for their commitment he will necessarily refuse to commit them and it will be open to him to make such ORDER :as he deems fit in the circumstances, and according to law. In the circumstances stated above, the revision is allowed and the impugned ORDER :of the Magistrate dated 21.11.1970 is set aside, and he is directed to hold enquiry into this case no. 1312 under Chapter XVIII, Criminal Procedure Code and pass necessary ORDER :s in the light of above observations.