JUDGMENT T. Chandrasekhara Menon, J. 1. The petitioner in the Criminal Revision petition is the appellant in the Criminal Appeal. He is PW 1 in Sessions Case No. 3 of 1979 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Attingal, from which the Criminal Revision Petition arises. Sessions Case No. 3 of 1979 arises out of a case charge sheeted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Varkala, against 7 accused persons for offences punishable under S.143, 147, 148, 149, 324 and 323 IPC. The accused persons in this case are the same as those in Sessions case No. 2 of 1979 which originated upon a private complaint preferred by PW 1 the petitioner. The incident in respect of both the Sessions case is identical except with regard to the offence punishable under S.395 and 427 which are not included in the case S.C. 3 of 1979. The court below acquitted the accused. It might be noted that along with S. C. No. 3 of 1979, Sessions Case 5 of 1979 was also tried which was a counter case to S.C. 3 of 1979, In all these cases, the accused were acquitted by the Assistant Session Judge. 2. What is contended by Mr. N. Mohandas, learned counsel for the appellant petitioner is that non clubbing of the cases by the Magistrate himself before the committal has prejudiced the private complainant, namely PW 1. S.210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows: "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. 2. "If a report is made by the investigating police officer under S.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 necessity for incorporating this section has been explained by the Joint Parliamentary Committee in the following words. "It has been brought to the notice of the committee that sometimes when a serious case is under investigation by the police, some of the persons concerned file a complaint and quickly get an order of acquittal either by collusion or otherwise. Thereupon the investigation of the case becomes infructuous leading to miscarriage of justice in some, cases. To avoid this, the committee has provided that where a complaint is filed and the Magistrate has information that the Police is also investigating the same offence, the Magistrate shall stay the complaint case. If the police report is received in the case, the Magistrate should try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report. But if no such report is received, the Magistrate would be free to dispose of the complaint case". A private complainant can also be defeated if there is some collusion in the matter between the police and the accused. The provision also provides that if in respect of an offence already taken cognizance of based on a private complaint the Magistrate comes to know that police investigation is in progress he should under sub-s.(1) stay the proceedings in the case started on the private complaint and call for the police report. This is a preventive measure. It is to avoid, as far as possible, taking cognizance of the same offence again and to avoid separate trials for the same offence. This is a preventive measure. It is to avoid, as far as possible, taking cognizance of the same offence again and to avoid separate trials for the same offence. That is why sub-s.(2) provides for trial together of the two cases if cognizance happens to be taken twice on private complaint and police report and it is only to avoid the anomalies arising from taking cognizance of the same offence more than once. The trial in such circumstances is to be conducted as if both the cases were instituted on a police report. So naturally if the case is committed to the Sessions, before the committal itself, there should be clubbing by the Magistrate. Otherwise, the object sought to be achieved by the Section would not be obtained. 3. It might also be noted that under S.300 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall while such conviction or acquittal remains in force is not liable to be tried again for the same offence, not on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub-s.(1) of S.221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub-s.(2) thereof. If there has been no proper charge sheeting by the police or the relevant charges are not given in the private complaint, the concerned party should not suffer. That is also an object for clubbing together both the cases. 4. Mr. Poly Mathai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, relied on the decision by my learned brother, Narendran, J. in Joseph v. Joseph ( 1981 KLT 902 ) There two questions came up for consideration. The mail point that arose for consideration there was whether for the clubbing for trial of a complaint case and the case arising out of the police report under S.210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. is it enough if the complaint case and the police charge relate to the same occurrence or is it necessary that the offences taken cognizance of in bath must be identical, when the other conditions insisted by the section are satisfied. The learned Judge said in construing S.210(1) the word 'offence' cannot be given the restricted meaning. is it enough if the complaint case and the police charge relate to the same occurrence or is it necessary that the offences taken cognizance of in bath must be identical, when the other conditions insisted by the section are satisfied. The learned Judge said in construing S.210(1) the word 'offence' cannot be given the restricted meaning. There, it is used to denote the occurrence, the incident or the event. This is clear from the words which follow viz., 'which is subject matter of the enquiry'. But the same meaning cannot be given to the word 'offence' used in sub-s.(2). There, it is used in the restricted sense of a violation of law. Cognizance can be taken only of a violation of law. So, the learned Judge comes to the conclusion that for clubbing the two eases for trial it is enough that cognizance is taken by the Magistrate of any offence against any accused in the complaint case on the report of the police who investigated the occurrence which led to the complaint case. If, on the other hand, it is insisted that all the offences taken cognizance of the complaint case must be there in the case registered on the police report, that will only defeat the very purpose of S.210 itself. It is to prevent private complaints from interfering with the course of justice that S.210 is incorporated in the Code. The decision as such is certainly not helpful to the respondents; that really helps the contention raised by the appellant petitioner. But, Mr. Poly Mathai would point out that the learned Judge had given two reasons for interfering with the order for clubbing the two cases passed by the Magistrate. The first was for the application of S.210 it is absolutely necessary that in the first instance there should be a private complaint before the court during the pendency of which it is brought to the notice of the court that police investigation is pending in respect of the same offence. It is only after the filing of the police report that the complaint in that case was filed. Therefore, S.210 cannot be applied. Secondly the offences in respect of which investigation was carried on by the police are not identical with the offences alleged by the second respondent in his private complaint. It is only after the filing of the police report that the complaint in that case was filed. Therefore, S.210 cannot be applied. Secondly the offences in respect of which investigation was carried on by the police are not identical with the offences alleged by the second respondent in his private complaint. The learned Judge pointed out that unless they are identical S.210 will not have any application and an order for clubbing both the cases under S.210(2) is not permissible at all. In regard to the first question what the learned Judge said was the reason given by the learned Sessions Judge is based on a mistake of fact. We have to understand the scope of the section by looking into the object for which it is enacted. In this view I find no merit in the argument raised by Mr. Poly Mathai, based on the decision of 1981 KLT 902 . 5. The difficulty in the matter arises because of separate committal made by the Magistrate as pointed out by Mr. Mohandas. It is said that the Medical certificate regarding the injury sustained by PW 1 and others produced in Sessions case No. 3 of 1979 was not permitted to be marked in Sessions Case No. 2 of 1979, It might be noted that the learned Sessions Judge himself states that though the wound certificate has been produced in the case as it is not produced in the other case, its effect cannot be considered. In the Circumstances, I think there is much basis for the complaint of PW 1 that prejudice has been caused to the private complainant on account of the non clubbing of the evidence. In this view, I set aside the judgments in Sessions Cases 2 and 3 of 1979 of the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Attingal. The matter will have to go back to the Magistrate for a proper committal in the matter and alter such committal the necessary charges can be framed. The Magistrate before the committal has to proceed on the basis that the case had been instituted out of the police report but taking into account the offences complained of in the private complaint. Criminal Appeal and Revision are allowed as indicated above.