Order.- On the report filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kuthiathode, the Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Sherthallai, registered C.C. No. 901 of 1973 against three accused persons for offences under sections 452, 354, 323, 379 and 34, Indian Penal Code. Dissatisfied with the investigation and the charge-sheet filed by the Police, the petitioner herein, who is the first informant, filed a complaint C.C. No. 936 of 1973 before the Court against ten accused persons including the three accused C.C. No. 901 of 1973 in respect of the same occurrence. While the cases were pending, a motion was made in 1975 that their trial should be in accordance with the principles laid down in section 210 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974. The Court allowed the prayer and framed a common charge combining the two cases. After the examination of three witnesses mentioned in the police charge-sheet, the complainant in C.C. No. 936 of 1973 wanted to examine some of the witnesses from the list of witnesses appended to her complaint. This was opposed by the accused stating that under section 210, the trial should be conducted as in a police charge case and that examination of the witnesses mentioned in the private complaint is not contemplated under the section. Such examination, according to them, would deprive them of the opportunity of a second cross-examination which would have been available if the case had been proceeded with as a private complaint. The Court accepted the contention and rejected the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner wants the above order to be quashed. 2. The procedure followed and the stand taken by the Court in not permitting the petitioner to examine her witnesses are erroneous. The Magistrate, in the first place, committed a mistake in applying section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (II of 1974) in the cases before him. The Court overlooked section 484 (2) dealing with cases pending trial on the date of repeal of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Magistrate, in the first place, committed a mistake in applying section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (II of 1974) in the cases before him. The Court overlooked section 484 (2) dealing with cases pending trial on the date of repeal of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Section 484 (2) (a) reads: “(2) Notwithstanding such repeal- (a) if, immediately before the date on which this Code comes into force, there is any appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending, then, such appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation shall be disposed of, continued, held or made, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898) as in force immediately before such commencement (hereinafter referred to as the old Code), as if this Code had not come into force: Provided that every inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the old Code, which is pending at the commencement of this Code, shall be dealt with and disposed of in accordance, with the provisions of the Code.” The two cases were filed in 1973. before the new Code came into force and as such the trial should have been continued in accordance with the provisions of the old Code. Section 210 of the new Code has no application to cases pending trial on the commencement thereof. 3. Assuming that section 210 applies that section contemplates situations of a different type than the one in hand. Section 210 reads: “210. Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence:- (1) When in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as a complaint case), it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject-matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation. (2) If a report is made by the investigating police officer under section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report. (3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Code.” The conditions for the application of the section are: (a) there should be a case instituted otherwise than a police report pending enquiry or trial, (b) investigation by the police should be in progress in relation to the same offence which is the subject of the case, (c) a report should be filed by the police officer under section 173, and (d) the Magistrate should take cognizance of an offence against a person who is an accused in the complaint case. The framers of the Code were aware that there are instances where accused persons against whom a case is under investigation by the police, in collusion with others get a private complaint filed against them and manage to secure an acquittal before the police case comes up for trial thus making the subsequent police charge-sheet infructuous and the trial based on it nugatory; section 210 is intended to avert such collusion. The section provides a special procedure for trial of cases referred to therein and directs that the Magistrate shall enquire into or try the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report together, as if both were instituted on a police report. The special procedure does not provide for examination of witnesses for the purpose of framing a charge in the complaint case and, therefore, the need for a second cross-examination of the witnesses for the complainant does not arise. Section 210 (2) does not warrant any objection against the examination of witnesses mentioned in the complaint case. Therefore, assuming, that section 210 applies to the case, the refusal of the Magistrate to examine the witnesses mentioned in the complaint is not justified. 4. Section 210 (2) does not warrant any objection against the examination of witnesses mentioned in the complaint case. Therefore, assuming, that section 210 applies to the case, the refusal of the Magistrate to examine the witnesses mentioned in the complaint is not justified. 4. As already stated, the case under reference have to be tried in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The procedure provided for trial of complaint cases is different from that intended for trial of cases based on police report. While the prosecution of cases arising out of police report is taken by the State, the complaint cases are in the charge of the aggrieved persons. Very often, complaint cases are filed by aggrieved persons when they are dissatisfied with the investigation of the case by the police. In such cases, the Magistrate should decide whether having taken cognizance of the offence in the police case, he should exercise his power under section 190 (1) once again. At times, the police case and the complaint Case may mention common accused and. common offences and also accused and offences not common and different versions of the incident may also be put forward. In such cases, it may not be practical to consolidate the cases in view of the difference in procedure involved and trial may have to go on separately. The only way to get over section 403 in cases of the kind is to have them disposed of simultaneously. No doubt, cases can be consolidated after they come up for trial before the Sessions Court, subject to the provisions contained in sections 234 to 239 of the Code. This is because before the Sessions Court, the procedure followed is the same and the prosecution in all cases is conducted by the Public Prosecutor. It follows that in the absence of a statutory provision similar to section 210 of the new Code, the Court below was not justified in clubbing the two cases and in creating a situation which is not contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. 5. The impugned order in Crl. M.P. No. 521 of 1976 in C.C. No. 901 of 1973 is, therefore, quashed. It is now agreed by both sides that trial of C.C.No. 901 of 1973 and C.C. No. 936 of 1973 should go on separately as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. 5. The impugned order in Crl. M.P. No. 521 of 1976 in C.C. No. 901 of 1973 is, therefore, quashed. It is now agreed by both sides that trial of C.C.No. 901 of 1973 and C.C. No. 936 of 1973 should go on separately as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The trial Court is directed to see that the cases are proceeded with in accordance with law and to dispose them expeditiously.