JUDGMENT B. P. Jha, J. Petitioners moved this Court to set aside the Judgment of the Sessions Judge of Motihari dated the 27th August, 1971. By this Judgment the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of the Magistrate dated the 16th July, 1971, the Magistrate has refused to commit these petitioners to the court of Session on the ground that the prosecution has failed to make out a prima facie case in respect of the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. In the view of the Magistrate, the prosecution has brought home the offence under sections 324, 325, 148 of the Indian Penal Code against these petitioners. In his opinion these offences, namely, under sections 324, 325 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code are triable by the Magistrate, and therefore, there is no necessity to commit the petitioners to the court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of the magistrate on the ground that the counter-case was committed to the court of sessions and as such the other case should also be committed to the court of Sessions. There is no rule of law that every counter-case should be committed to the court of Session. It is relevant at this stage to quote section 347 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which runs thus : "If in any inquiry before a Magistrate, or in any trial before a Magistrate before signing Judgment it appears to him at any stage of the proceedings that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of session or High Court, and if he is empowered to commit for trial, he shall commit the accused under the provisions herein before contained." The option has been given to the magistrate to commit the accused person to the court of Session even before signing the Judgment provided it appears to him that the case is one triable by the court of session. The magistrate is vested with this power. But, this power should be exercised by the magistrate when he feels that it will not be possible for him to inflict adequate punishment. The magistrate is bound to commit those cases where the offences are exclusively triable by the court of Session. The magistrate is vested with this power. But, this power should be exercised by the magistrate when he feels that it will not be possible for him to inflict adequate punishment. The magistrate is bound to commit those cases where the offences are exclusively triable by the court of Session. In other cases, the magistrate can commit under section 347 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (here-in-after to be referred to as the Code) if the Magistrate feels that he cannot inflict adequate punishment. If the offences in a counter case are triable by the Magistrate, it is not obligatory on the part of the magistrate to commit the accused to the court of Session simply because the counter case has been committed to the Court of Session. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal procedure which suggests this procedure. In this connection Mr. Ramakant Varma, learned counsel for the petitioners, relied on a decision of the Division Bench of Andhra High Court in the case of Ummadi Pulla Reddi and others, A.I.R. 1956 A.P. 17. In that case the learned Judges of the Division Bench held as follows : - "The combined effect of the aforesaid provisions therefore, is that in cases exclusively triable by a Sessions Court, the magistrate shall commie the accused to sessions. In cases which are triable by him but in regard to which he can not inflict adequate punishment he may also commit the accused to Sessions. But section 254 cannot be read by necessary implication to mean that in a case covered by that section the court has no power to commit the accused to Sessions, for that section only in terms enjoins a Magistrate to frame a charge if a prima facie case has been made out in regard to an offence triabe by him and in respect whereof he could impose adequate punishment". I agree with the opinion of the Division Bench of the Andhra High Court. 2. Sri Nagendra Rai learned Counsel for the State cited two decisions of the Single Judge of this Court, namely, the case of (i) Hasim Mian Vs. Sundar Paswan, 1971 B.L.J.R. 25 C and (ii) Radha Raman Mandal Vs Guiabi Mandal and others, 1971 P.L.J.R. 521. I agree with the opinion of the Division Bench of the Andhra High Court. 2. Sri Nagendra Rai learned Counsel for the State cited two decisions of the Single Judge of this Court, namely, the case of (i) Hasim Mian Vs. Sundar Paswan, 1971 B.L.J.R. 25 C and (ii) Radha Raman Mandal Vs Guiabi Mandal and others, 1971 P.L.J.R. 521. In Hasim Mians case his Lordship was of opinion that for the ends of Justice it is desirable that, both the cases should be tried by the same Judge, namely, the Sessions Judge. In Radha Raman Mandal's case, the learned Single Judge was of opinion that in the interest of Justice the counter-case should be tried in the same court. The Judgments passed in these two cases were decided on the facts and circumstances mentioned in these cases. 3. I fully agree with the decisions of the Andhra High Court in the case of Ummadi Pulla Reddi and ors. There is no rule of law nor is there any rule of prudence which suggests that the counter case should be tried by the same Judge. There is nothing wrong if the counter cases are tried by a different Judge or Magistrate. In cases where both the counter cases are committed to the court of session, there is nothing in law which suggests that the same Session Judge may try both the cases. But, there is no rule of law that if one case is committed to the court of session, the other counter-case is bound to be committed to the court of session. If the offences are triable by the Magistrate in one counter-case, the Magistrate is not under any obligation to commit that case to the court of session unless he feels that it is not possible for him to inflict adequate punishment. In these circumstances I set aside the order of the sessions Judge dated the 27th August, 1971, affirm the order of the Magistrate dated the 16th July, 1971 and allow this petition in revision. Application allowed.