JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. B. R. Arara, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the judgment of acquittal passed in this case by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh on December 19, 1978. The petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of acquittal passed in this case by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh. The State has not come up in appeal after obtaining requisite leave from this Court, although the non-petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were prosecuted on a police report and were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, after they had been committed to his Court. 2. Upon perusal of the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge we are satisfied that the non petitioners viz. Rampratap and Maniram were rightly acquitted of the offences under sections 447 and 307, Indian Penal Code and in the alternative under section 307 read with section 34, Indian Panel Code. The trial Judge has given good reasons for not holding both the non petitioners guilty of the aforesaid charges and we see absolutely no reason to take a different view of the evidence led by the prosecution in this case. 3. Mr. B. R. Arora could not succeed in showing that the trial Judge committed such an illegality or glaring procedural error in trying the case as may necessitate the order of retrial. He merely contended that the Additional Sessions Judge ought to have tried the cross case simultaneously with this case, and delivered separate judgments on the same day after hearing the arguments in both the cases. In support of his above contention he relied upon the authority of : Kalandi Behera v. The State (AIR 1965 Orissa 166) , wherein reliance has been placed on an authority of the Supreme Court in Akhlag v. State of U.P. (1962 Mys. L.J., 134) and held on its strength that in cross-cases arising out of the same occurrence both trials should be held separately, but one after the other by the same Judge, who should not deliver the judgments till both the cases are heard and finished. 4. We have perused the authority cited by Mr. B. R. Arora and considered his above contention. 4. We have perused the authority cited by Mr. B. R. Arora and considered his above contention. It will not be out of place to mention that when the judgment was pronounced in this case by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the cross-case was pending in the Court of Munsiff-Magistrate, No. 1, Hanumangarh. It was not desirable for the Additional Sessions Judge to direct that the cross-case should be committed for trial to his court, because the learned Magistrate was seized of the cross-case and it was for him to decide whether or not there were sufficient grounds for committing the accused persons to the Court of Session. The general rule no doubt is that the counter-cases should ordinarily be tried by one and the same court, but this is a rule of convenience and cannot be universally adhered to. Apart from this, even if the Additional Sessions Judge has committed this irregularity it has no effect of vitiating the trial of this case. Mr. B.R. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner could not produce any authority before us to show that the acquittal based on proper and thorough appreciation of evidence and supported by good reasons can be set aside and a retrial be ordered merely because the case was not tried with the cross-case and the judgment of acquittal was delivered before the conclusion of the trial of the cross-case. However, we think It just and proper to make it clear that the findings of the trial Judge given out in this case shall not adversely affect the merits of the cross case, and influence the mind of the Judge or the Magistrate trying the cross-case. 5. Hence there is ao substance in the revision petition, and it is hereby dismissed summarily.Revision dismissed. *******