JUDGMENT Chandra Prakash, J. - This is an application in revision against the order dated April 16, 1971 of Sri J. S. Pandey, Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad rejecting the applicant's application for amalgamation of two trials. 2. One Om Prakash was murdered on September 27, 1968 at about sunset in vill. Acharia Bararpur distt. jarrukhabad. In respect of this incident one Sadanand lodged the F.I.R. at Police Station on September 28, 1968 at 12-10 A. M. He named seven persons namely Hardayal, Sia Ram, Badam Singh, Kashi Ram, Mahesh, Khushi Rain and Badan Singh as accused who committed the murder of Om Prakash. Sadanand, Rajkumar, Bhuja Singh, Tilak Singh and Gurdayal were cited as eye witnesses. The police investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet against Har Dayal named in the F.I.R. and eight others. On the basis of this charge-sheet Har Dayal, Ratia, Chote and Ram Deen were committed to the court of the Sessions to stand their trial under section 302/34 I.P.C. and five others namely Sadanand, Rajkumar, B.iuja Singh, Tilak Singh and Gur Dayal mentioned as eye witnesses in the F.I.R. were committed to the court of Sessions to stand their trial under section 201/149 Indian Penal Code. 3. It appears that Jabar Singh, brother of the deceased Om Prakash filed a separate complaint against Har Dayal and six others who were named as accused in the F.I.R. lodged by Sadanand. After holding an enquiry the A. D. M. (J.) discharged these accused. Jabar Singh complainant filed a revision in the court of Sessions Judge. The Sessions judge set aside the order of discharge and required the A.D.M. (J), to commit Hardayal and other six persons who have been named in the F.I.R. filed by Sadanand to the court of Sessions. This was done. 4. It was prayed by the applicant in the court below that both these trials should be amalgamated as ordered by Sri V. P. Mathur by his order dated December 3, 1969. This application was rejected by the court below in whose court the two trials are now pending. 5. Against this order the applicant has come up in revision before me. This application was rejected by the court below in whose court the two trials are now pending. 5. Against this order the applicant has come up in revision before me. I have heard learned counsel fir the applicant and learned counsel for the state and after going through the record I have come to the conclusion that the amalgamation of the two trials in the peculiar-circumstances is not possible which shall be mentioned recently and the order of the court below cannot be disturbed. In the trial started on the basis of the charge-sheet submitted by the police Ratia, Ram Deen and Chote are accused on charge of 302/34. In the trial started on the complaint of Jabar Singh these persons are the prosecution witnesses. So in one trial three persons who are accused will be prosecution witness in the other trial started on the complaint of Jabar Singh. This is not permissible in one trial. 6. Amalgamation of trial will mean one trial. The order passed by the court below is therefore perfectly correct. It was however contended on behalf of the applicant that the order for amalgamation of trial has already been passed by the previous Sessions Judge, Sri V.P. Mathur and his successor, Sri J.S. Pandey has no jurisdiction to set aside that order. For the pro- position that amalgamation of two trials is possible, reliance is placed on Girraj Singh v. State, 1964 A.Cr.R. 148 and Mishri v. Piare Lal, 1968 A.Cr.R. 193. Both these rulings permit the amalgamation of two trials in certain circumstances. So far the contention of the applicant that the court below had no jurisdiction to set aside the order of his predecessor, that appears to be correct, but the entire record is before me under section 439 Cr.P.C. this court is competent to pass any order which can be passed by a court of appeal under sections 423, 426, 427, 428 or by a court of Sessions under section 338 except enhancing of sentence. Since the record of the case before me this court is competent to revise the previous order dated December 3, 1969 passed by Sri Mathur. As a matter of fact if the order of amalgamation of trial is allowed to stand, there will be practically no trial at all. Since the record of the case before me this court is competent to revise the previous order dated December 3, 1969 passed by Sri Mathur. As a matter of fact if the order of amalgamation of trial is allowed to stand, there will be practically no trial at all. The order of Sri V. P. Mathur in these circumstances is therefore set aside and the application in revision against the order dated April 16, 1971 is dismissed. The stay order may be discharged.