M. K. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) A few facts necessary to appreciate the points which arise in this application may be set out in brief:-THE petitioner at the relevant time was attached as a Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering Department of L. E. College of Movie of which college the opponent No. 1 was the Principal in charge of the college and opponent No. 2 was working as a Professor of Mathematics while opponent No. 3 was a storekeeper in the college and opponent No. 4 was a student therein. An incident happened on 15th October 1976 and as per the say of the petitioner opponent No. 4 followed by opponent Nos. 1 2 and 3 along with two police man entered his bungalow after having alighted from a jeep car which looked like a police jeep. After having entered his premises the opponents started giving threats to the petitioner stating that the paper of the student-opponent No. 4which had come for examination with the petitioner had been tampered with and the police had therefore come and his premises were to be searched. The petitioner became nervous on seeing the Police. Opponent Nos. 1 and 2 searched the whole house including the person of the petitioner and took out all the papers from his pockets. In one of his pockets in an envelope there were six currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 50/ each. They took away the same as also two of the books which were lying on his table and they also took away out of the bundle of the papers which had been sent for examining paper bearing seat No. 47 and one question paper. the paper was for the Saurashtra University October 1976 B. E. 6th Semester and was M. E. P. Machine Design paper bearing seat No. 47. They had raided the place and entered his premises without any warrant or authority and had entered the premises with the intention of committing the crime of theft of movies and the articles as contended by the petitioner. The petitioner therefore filed a complaint on the 17th October 1916 before the learned Magistrate against the opponents and the learned Magistrate issued process on 18-10-76 for the offences under secs. 451 380 r. w. sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner therefore filed a complaint on the 17th October 1916 before the learned Magistrate against the opponents and the learned Magistrate issued process on 18-10-76 for the offences under secs. 451 380 r. w. sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that thereafter opponent No. 1 filed a complaint before the police against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had accepted an illegal gratification of Rs. 300/from the opponent No. 4 student for showing favour in respect of his Machine Design Paper which was to be examined by the petitioner. The police after investigation submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offence punishable under sec. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and sec. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The said case is now pending before the Special Judge Rajkot after having been numbered as Special Case No. 3/78 and is fixed for hearing on the 22nd of this month. ( 2 ) BY an application Ex. 49 the petitioner had applied before the learned Magistrate to transfer the said Criminal case against the opponents being Case No. 759/76 to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge Rajkot on the ground that the cross case filed at the instance of the opponent No. 1 being Special Case No. 3/78 was pending before the learned Special Judge whose duty and functions were being discharged by the learned Sessions Judge Rajkot. 55 no orders were passed on Ex. 49 the petitioners advocate gave another application on 12-10-78 requesting the Court to pass an order on his application Ex. 49 and the learned Magistrate after hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioner observed that after receiving application Ex. 49 he had addressed a letter Ex. 50 on 20th September 1978 to the learned Sessions Judge to which the learned Sessions Judge had replied by Ex. 51 to the effect that the Special Judge had no powers to try cases under secs. 380 and 451 of the Indian Penal Code and that therefore the learned Magistrate should pass appropriate order on Ex 49. By an order which was passed on 21-2-78 on Ex. 51 to the effect that the Special Judge had no powers to try cases under secs. 380 and 451 of the Indian Penal Code and that therefore the learned Magistrate should pass appropriate order on Ex 49. By an order which was passed on 21-2-78 on Ex. 52 at the instance of the petitioner the learned Magistrate had stayed the proceedings before him till the cross case filed by opponent No. 1 is disposed of and he was therefore of the opinion that when the proceedings before him were stayed the question of transferring the same as prayed in Ex. 49 did not arise. He therefore passed an order accordingly. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by that order the petitioner filed Criminal Revision Application No. 699/78 which is now converted into and heard as a Criminal Misc. Application. ( 4 ) MR. H. K. Thakore the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the case pending before the learned Magistrate should be committed to the Court of Sessions at Rajkot because before that very Court is fixed for hearing a case arising out of the cross complaint filed by the opponent No. 1 namely Special Case No. 3/78. The evidence in both the cases submits Mr. Thakore will be mostly common and same questions of facts and law will arise. Both the cases arise out of the same incident which happened on the 15th October 1976 As per the version of the petitioner the opponents illegally entered his house and deprived him of a sum of Rs. 300/and other articles and thereby committed offences punishable under secs. 451 and 380 r. w. sec. 34 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the version of the opponents the petitioner had demanded a sum of Rs. 300/from opponent is to. 4 student as illegal gratification for showing favour to him in examining his paper and the student informed the other opponents about it. The opponents secured police protection and went in a jeep at the place of the petitioner and after opponent No. 4 had given the said amount of Rs. 300/from opponent is to. 4 student as illegal gratification for showing favour to him in examining his paper and the student informed the other opponents about it. The opponents secured police protection and went in a jeep at the place of the petitioner and after opponent No. 4 had given the said amount of Rs. 300/to the petitioner and the petitioner had accepted the same as illegal gratification for showing favour in the paper written by the said opponent the remaining opponents immediately thereafter raided the place of the accused in the company of the police and they found that the petitioner-accused was having the said amount of Rs. 300/with him earlier given by opponent No. 4 and that the paper of opponent No. 4 had been taken out lying before the said opponent along with two books on the subject of Mechanical Engineering Design by Agrawal and Elements of Machine Design by Pandya and Shah. It is therefore contended by Mr. Thakore that if the case before the Special Judge is heard first which is likely to be heard by the learned Sessions Judge Rajkot and if the case filed by the petitioner is thereafter heard by the learned Magistrate at Movie there is likelihood of prejudice being caused to the petitioner and that in the interest of justice it is desirable that both the cases should be heard by the same Judicial Officer. ( 5 ) MR. Thakore in this connection strongly relies on Kalandi Behera v. The State 1965 (2) Criminal Law Journal p. 383. He relies on the observations which appear at page 384 and which are extracted from a case decided by the Supreme Court. They are in the following terms:-"in Akhlag v. State of U. P. 1962 Mys. L. I. 134 Their Lordships of the Supreme Court negatived this view. They observed that wherever the parties are prosecuted for attack on each other in the same occurrence and there are counter cases and versions both trials should be held separately but one after the other by the same Judge who should not pronounce judgments till after both cases are heard and finished. The same would apply to appeal also". They observed that wherever the parties are prosecuted for attack on each other in the same occurrence and there are counter cases and versions both trials should be held separately but one after the other by the same Judge who should not pronounce judgments till after both cases are heard and finished. The same would apply to appeal also". Similar view is also expressed in Banappa Kallappa Ajawan v. Emperor A. I. R. 1944 Bombay 146 though the same is expressed not with regard to cross cases but with regard to cases against two rival fractions which have taken part in a riot. He lastly relied on Girijananda Bhattacharyya and Another v. The State of Assam and Others 1978 Criminal Law Journal 259 At page 261 appear observations extracted from A. I. R. 1930 Madras 190 wherein it was observed as follows:-"there is no clear law as regards the procedure in counter cases a defect which the legislature ought to remedy. It is a generally recognised rule that such cases should be tried in quick succession by the same Judge who should not pronounce judgment till the hearing of both cases is finished. This precludes the danger of an accused being convicted before his whole case is before the Court and also prevents there being conflicting judgments upon similar facts". ( 6 ) NOW if these principles are to be applied to the facts of the present case it is obvious that these two cases which arise more or less out of the same incident and which involve consideration of almost the trials. In the corruption case the main question would be as to whether the amount which was later recovered by the opponents from the petitioner in his house was an amount paid by opponent No. 4 to the petitioner and accepted by him as and by way of illegal gratification for doing favour in examining his paper. In the corruption case the main question would be as to whether the amount which was later recovered by the opponents from the petitioner in his house was an amount paid by opponent No. 4 to the petitioner and accepted by him as and by way of illegal gratification for doing favour in examining his paper. If this question is decided in the affirmative then there would be hardly any substance in the petitioners case pending before the learned Magistrate that the opponents committed a theft of this amount from his person which case of the petitioner is based on the footing that the amount initially and all throughout belonged to him and was not transferred from the side of the opponent No. 4 to the side of the petitioner as was the main contention in the corruption case. It is therefore expedient in the interest of justice that these two cases are tried by one and the same Judge. ( 7 ) BUT Mr. Mehta the learned Advocate appearing for the opponents submits that the principle laid down by the Supreme Court would not apply to the facts of the present case because in the instant case even if the case filed by the opponent and pending before the learned Magistrate is committed to the Court of Sessions at Rajkot the same will be triable by a different authority than the one which would be trying the corruption case. The corruption case is triable by a Special Judge while the Sessions case is tibial by a Sessions Judge. It is true says Mr. Mehta that the Presiding Officer over both the trials would be the same person by virtue of the fact that the Sessions Judge is invested with the powers of a Special Judge. But then the Presiding Officer will be trying both the cases in two different capacities and in that sense the cases are triable by two different categories of judicial officers and therefore even though they are cross cases they should not be heard by the same Presiding Officer. I am unable to accept this contention of Mr. Mehta. But then the Presiding Officer will be trying both the cases in two different capacities and in that sense the cases are triable by two different categories of judicial officers and therefore even though they are cross cases they should not be heard by the same Presiding Officer. I am unable to accept this contention of Mr. Mehta. It is true that the case which may be committed from the learned Magistrate to the Court of Sessions at Rajkot would be triable by the learned Judge in his capacity as a Sessions Judge while the corruption case is triable by him in his capacity as a Special Judge. But we have to take a broad and practical perspective of the matter without being drowned by the weight of technicalities and see if by virtue of the application of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court it would be expedient and in the interest of justice to have both these cases tried by the same judicial officer though in different capacity or succumb to the technical difficulty and permit one case to be tried at Rajkot by the learned Special Judge in his capacity as a Special Judge and the other case at Movie by the learned Magistrate. After all the prime consideration should be to serve the ends of justice. No prejudice is likely to be caused to any of the parties if both the case are tried by the learned Sessions Judge at Rajkot though in different capacities; while on the other hand there is likelihood of prejudice being caused to either of the parties if the cases are tried by two different judicial officers. ( 8 ) MR. Mehta then submitted that as this was the case filed on a private complaint the provisions of sec. 244 of the Code would apply and as provided therein the Magistrate has to proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution and thereafter either to discharge the accused or to frame charge against him as provided under secs. 245 and 246 of the Code and there is no power in the learned Magistrate to commit such a case to the Court of Sessions except under sec. 323 or 325 of the Code. Mr. Mehta further submits that even under sec. 245 and 246 of the Code and there is no power in the learned Magistrate to commit such a case to the Court of Sessions except under sec. 323 or 325 of the Code. Mr. Mehta further submits that even under sec. 323 of the Code the learned Magistrate cannot commit the case to Sessions unless he follows certain procedure namely of hearing the evidence and deciding as to whether this is a case requiring mere severe sentence in which case power is vested in him under sec. 325 of the Code to submit the proceedings and forward the accused to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom he is subordinate and the Chief Judicial Magistrate has thereafter to follow the procedure as prescribed in sub-sec. (3) of sec 325 and if he feels that this is the case which requires commitment to the Sessions Court he has power to do so under sec. 323 of the case. Therefore contends Mr. Mehta in the instant case at the stage at which the proceedings are the learned Magistrate has no power even under sec. 323 to commit the case to the Court of Sessions. 10a Mr. Mehta wants to draw support for his contention in this behalf from the decision of this Court in Narendra Amratlal Dalal v. State of Gujarat 19 G. L. R. 165 wherein after considering the provisions contained in secs. 19 228 228 323 and 325 of the Code my learned brother D. P. Desai J. has observed at page 170 that:-"therefore on a correct interpretation of the relevant provisions no Magistrate can straightway commit a case to the Court of Sessions under sec. 323 on the ground that the punishment that the accused should receive ought to be different in kind and more severe than that which he is competent to inflict". THESE observations do not help Mr. Mehta because in terms they state that sec. 323 cannot be brought into aid for committing the case to the Court of Sessions straightway by a Magistrate if the ground of commitment is that the punishment that the accused should receive ought to be different in kind and more severe than that which the Magistrate is competent to inflict. But as clearly observed on the very page little later this interpretation does not affect the power of a Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate to commit under sec. But as clearly observed on the very page little later this interpretation does not affect the power of a Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate to commit under sec. 323 of the new Code a case to the Court of Sessions wherein a question other than the quantum of punishment which ought to be received by the accused is involved. ( 9 ) IT is manifestly clear that while considering the question of commitment to the Court of Sessions by having recourse to the powers vested in the Magistrate under sec. 323 of the Code which contains general power of commitment providing that if to any inquiry into an offence or a trial before a Magistrate it appears to him at any stage of the proceedings before siding judgment that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Session he shall commit it to the Court under the provisions herein before contained if the ground of commitment is the category or the severity of the sentence to be imposed then the Magistrate cannot straight way commit without following the procedure prescribed elsewhere in the Code as observed in 19 G. L. R. (Supra ). ( 10 ) BUT if the ground relates to some other consideration such as the desirability of the trial of cross cases arising out of the same incident by the same Judge as observed by the Supreme Court and other Courts in decisions earlier referred to then the Magistrate in my opinion would be perfectly competent straightway to have recourse to the general provisions contained in sec. 323 of the Code to commit the case to the Court of Sessions at any stage of the proceedings before he sighs the judgment. ( 11 ) IT is true that sec. 244 of the Code does provide that in cases instituted otherwise than on police report when the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. ( 11 ) IT is true that sec. 244 of the Code does provide that in cases instituted otherwise than on police report when the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. But the provisions contained therein do not and cannot take away the powers vested in the Magistrate under sec 323 of the Code to commit the case to the Court of Sessions at any stage of the proceedings before signing the judgment provided the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Sessions. ( 12 ) MR. Mehta also drew my attention to the provisions contained in sec. 193 of the Code which provides thus:-"except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under this Code". MR. Mehta. wants to base an argument on the provisions contained in this Section to the effect that the Court of Sessions will not have jurisdiction to try the case unless the learned Magistrate himself commits the same by following the procedure laid down in the Code and that there are no provisions in the Code laying down that a case of which the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance otherwise than by a police report can be committed to the Court of Sessions by the learned Magistrate. As earlier observed there is no substance in this contention. The provisions of sec. 323 of the Code do invest the learned Magistrate with powers to commit the case to the Court of Sessions. ( 13 ) AGAIN it would be significant to note that the section starts with the words except otherwise provided by this Code and therefore if there are express provisions in the Code by which a case can be committed to the Court of Sessions then even though the same has not been committed by a Magistrate under any of the provisions of the Code the Court of Sessions can take cognizance of the offence disclosed therein as a Court of original jurisdiction; and that will take us to the second limb of Mr. Thakores submission which is to the effect that sec. 407 itself clothes this Court with the power to pass an order for committing for trial a case to a Court of Sessions. The material part of sec. 407 in this connection reads thus:-"407 whenever it is made to appear to the High Court (a ). . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . (c) that an order under this section is required by any provision of this Code or will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses or is expedient for the ends of justice it may order (i ). . . . . (ii ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (iii) that any particular case be committed for trial to a Court of Session; or (iv ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) The High Court may act either on the report of the lower Court or on the application of a party interested or on its own initiative; provided that no application shall lie to High Court for transferring a case from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in the same Sessions division. unless an application for such transfer has been made to the Sessions Judge and rejected by him. ( 14 ) IT will be thus seen that this Court has ample power in a fit case in which the Court if it feels that it is expedient for the ends of justice so to do to pass an order that and particular case pending before any Court subordinate to this Court may be committed for trial to a Court of Sessions. It cannot be he said that the cross cases which arise of the same occurrence or incident should be tried by one and the same Judge and therefore it also cannot be and said that the trial of such cases by one and the same Judge would be expedient for the ends of justice. The requirements therefore set out in sec. The requirements therefore set out in sec. 407 (i) (c) of the Code are fully satisfied in the instant case and this court therefore in the interest of justice is inclined to plus an order of committing the said case pending before the learned Magistrate to the Court of Sessions at Rajkot as prayed by the petitioner in his application. [ Rest of the judgment is not material for the reports. ] rule made absolute. .