LILAMOY GHOSH, J. ( 1 ) THESE two revision cases arise out of same transaction and so they arc taken up together for hearing. On 24th October, 1985 at about 3. 30 p. m. there was some disturbance over the apprehension of one person, who was said to be wanted in connection with a Lake P. S. It is alleged by the petitioner in Revision Case No. 883 of 1985 that as the police men were in a plain dress, he asked them to disclose their identity. According to the allegation of Ranjit Roy, the petitioner in Revision Case No. 883 of 1985, two police personnel then began to assault him and bodily lifted him. It is said that he fell unconscious and ultimately on regaining consciousness, found that he was inside the Lal bazar Police Station. Then, it is further alleged by the petitioner in Criminal Revision Case No. 883 of 1985, the police personnel began to assault severely. There are other allegations but it is not necessary to go into such details for this hearing. Ultimately the petitioner in Criminal Revision Case No. 883 of 1985 filed a complaint on 61. 1984 against the petitioner in the other revision case. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate issued against the two of the police persons against Runu Guha Neogi, the petitioner in Criminal Revision Case No. 1594 of 1985. Ranjit Roy moved the High Court and ultimately in pursuance of the order of the High Court processes were issued against Runu Guha Neogi also. Evidence began. The petitioner was examined. In the meantime, charge sheet was submitted against Ranjit Roy in connection with other side of the incident. It was alleged against Ranjit Roy that he stood in the way of apprehending a veteran criminal wanted in connection with lake P. S. and caused serious disturbances, which ultimately brought a near riot situation. Thus two cases arise out of same transaction-in one case the complainant is Ranjit Roy and in the other case Ranjit Roy is in the position of an accused on the basis of the charge sheet submitted by the police. ( 2 ) THESE, in short, are the facts of the case. ( 3 ) MR. Arun Prakash Chatterjee, the learned Standing Counsel has appeared for Ranjit Roy, the petitioner in Criminal Revision Case No. 883 of 1985. ( 4 ) MR. ( 2 ) THESE, in short, are the facts of the case. ( 3 ) MR. Arun Prakash Chatterjee, the learned Standing Counsel has appeared for Ranjit Roy, the petitioner in Criminal Revision Case No. 883 of 1985. ( 4 ) MR. Pradip Ghosh, learned Advocate, appears for Runu Guha Neogi, the petitioner in Criminal Revision Case No. 1594 of 1985. Mr. Somraj Dutt and Mr. Samit Chatterjee, learned Advocates, appear for the State. ( 5 ) AFTER hearing all sides it appears that the matter has now become a narrow issue. It is agreed by all concerned that the cases should be tried separately. It has also been a common view of the learned Advocates that both the cases should be heard by the same Magistrate. ( 6 ) MR. Dutt, appearing for the State, has submitted that under section 165 of the Evidence Act, each case must be disposed of on the basis of the evidence of that case and should not be decided on the basis of any extraneous matter. That indeed is the irrefutable position and nobody has urged that a particular case should be decided on the evidence of the other case. The narrow point to be, decided is whether one case should remain stayed till the disposal of the other or whether the two cases should be heard, one after another, but the judgment of the one case should be deferred till the other case is ready for delivery of judgment. ( 7 ) MR. Chatterjee, the learned Standing Counsel has straneously argued that G. R. Case No. 3382 of 1985 under sections 225, 353 of the Indian Penal Code should remain stayed till the disposal of the complains case of Ranjit Roy. He has relied on some decisions and mainly on the decision reported in A. I. R. 1923 Cal. 644:27 C. W. N. 700. That indeed supports the view that earlier case should be brought) its conclusion, including judgment, and the later case should remain stayed. In a later decision reported in 28 C. W. N. 481, the view expressed by this court was, however, different. 644:27 C. W. N. 700. That indeed supports the view that earlier case should be brought) its conclusion, including judgment, and the later case should remain stayed. In a later decision reported in 28 C. W. N. 481, the view expressed by this court was, however, different. In the last mentioned case, it was directed that the two cases should be tried simultaneously and contemporaneously but should be dealt with wholly separately from each other, each on its own merits and upon the facts and circumstances appearing therein, judgment in the two cases being pronounced, if possible, after both the trials are over. The earlier decision reported in A. I. R. 1923 Cal. 644 Judhistirs case was described as having been disposed of on special circumstances of its own, that is, the principle evolved in judhistir's case was not adopted in the subsequent case reported in 28 C. W. N. 481. Mr. Chatterjee, the learned Standing Counsel, has also relied on the case reported in A. I. R. 1980 S. C. 1180. That case was not concerning the exact point involved here but Judhistirs case was referred to in that decision. Mr. Chatterjee has argued that since Judhistir's case was accepted by the Supreme Court the rule laid down in that case must be followed by this court. It is to be noted, however, that the Supreme Court not only referred to Judhistirs case reported in 21 C. W. N. 700 but also to the Bombay case reported in A. I. R. 1944 Born. 146. It will be noticed later that the Bombay decision and the other decisions lay down a different formula from the one adopted in Judhistir's case. So, it is now necessary to look into some other decisions. ( 8 ) FIRST, I refer to decision reported in A. I. R. 1954 Mad. 442. That decision has evolved the principle that where there is a fight between two rival factions which gives rise to the complaint and counter complaint it is desirable that both the cases should be tried by the same Judge in quick succession, the first case should be tried to a conclusion but judgment should not be delivered till the other case is also heard to its conclusion and then the judgments in both should be delivered separately and on separate evidence. Almost the same view was expressed in the case reported in A. I. R. 1944 Born. 146. It is to the effect that first case should be tried to the conclusion and the verdict of the jury or the opinion of the assessors taken, but the Judge should postpone judgment in that case till he has heard second case to a conclusion. ( 9 ) IT is perhaps not necessary to multiply the decisions. It can only be said that in the interest of justice the devices suggested by the Madras and the Bombay High Courts appear to be most expedient. And, in that connection, I would once again refer the Supreme Court decision reported in A. I. R. 1980 S. C. 1780. In paragraph 8 of the decision, at page 1783, the Bombay decision reported in A. I. R. 1944 Bom. 146 has been approved although the decision in 27 C. W. N. 700 has also been approved. It seems to me that the Supreme Court has laid down that to obviate a risk of having conflicting judgments, it is ordinarily desirable that the two cases should be tried separately but by the same Court. This much is settled by the Supreme Court decision and as regards the devices adopted by the two Courts, the Calcutta High Court and the Bombay High Court, the Supreme Court has not made any observation, though approving both. Therefore, on the basis of the Supreme Court decision this Court is free to accept the device, which appears to be expedient in the interest of justice. It appears that Judhistir's case is rather a solitary case as to the extreme view that one case remain stayed till the disposal of the other case. On the other hand, a number of decisions of other courts including the Calcutta High Court have deprecated the way of keeping one case stayed. It also appears, that deferring one case till the disposal of the other case may inevitably lead to failure of justice. If the judgment in one case is delivered while the other case retails stayed all the time, the last case may become infractuous, everything having been decided by the first case. It also appears, that deferring one case till the disposal of the other case may inevitably lead to failure of justice. If the judgment in one case is delivered while the other case retails stayed all the time, the last case may become infractuous, everything having been decided by the first case. Following the Madras, Bombay and Calcutta decisions and the Supreme Court decision reported in A. I. R. 1980 S. C. 1780 I think it should be most expedient to have both the cases heard by the same Magistrate one after another, making provision that the judgment in one case should not be delivered till the other case is brought to its conclusion. ( 10 ) THE case of Ranjit Roy appears to be earlier in point of time. Some witnesses have been examined. It is desirable that that case should be heard first and then, before delivering judgment in that case the other should be taken up for hearing and ultimately judgment in both the cases may be delivered one after another on the same day or otherwise, depending of the exigency of the situation. ( 11 ) THE result is that in no revision case the prayer for stay is going to be granted, but the rules are to be disposed of in the following manner: C. R. case No. 3332 of 1983 pending in the 6th Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, be transferred to the 11th Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate to be disposed of one after another. Case No. C/23 of 1984 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate be taken up for hearing first and after conclusion of hearing, postponing the delivery of judgment in that case, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court should take up the other case. After the hearings of both the cases are concluded, the learned Magistrate is to deliver separate judgments, one after another, in the respective cases. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate be directed to make the necessary arrangement. The Criminal Revision cases and the Rules are disposed of in the above manner.