Judgment This is a revision petition by the accused. 2. The salient facts of the case are as follows: The accused is a Physical Education Teacher of a privately managed school in Nayalpur. P.W.1 is the Headmaster of the said school. It appears that at the beginning of the month of September, 1983, the Headmaster has made some changes in the time-table and communicated the same to all the teachers including the accused. The Headmaster Complained that the Physical Education Teacher came into his room and expressed his dissatisfaction on the changes and upon the Headmaster expressing his inability to change the same, there was wordy quarrel, after which the Physical Education Teacher beat the Headmaster with the ruler, dashed him against an almirah and caused him injuries. The Complaint was filed to the police on the same day. The matter was referred as a mistake of fact by the police on 12.9.1983. Then the Headmaster filed a private Complaint to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Wallajah on 13.9.1983. The Physical Education Teacher, on his part, filed another private Complaint before the same Magistrate on 6.10.1983. Both the Complaints were tried by the Magistrate one after the other and the Magistrate delivered the judgments in both the cases on the same day, namely, 30.6.1984. He dismissed the Complaint filed by the Physical Education Teacher and acquitted the Headmaster, who was charged under Sec. 323, I.P.C. Upon the Complaint of the Headmaster, he convicted the Physical Education Teacher under Secs. 323 and 448, I.P.C., and sentenced him to pay a sum of Rs.50 as fine under each offence in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. On appeal, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore at North Arcot District, by his judgment dated 14.2.1985 acquitted the Physical Education Teacher of the charge under Sec. 448, I.P.C. He however confirmed the conviction under Sec. 323, I.P.C., but modified the sentence imposed by the trial Court and released the accused after due admonition. This Revision Petition is filed by the Physical Education Teacher against the conviction under Sec. 323, I.P.C. 3. Two main grounds were urged by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner. The first is that the Complainant has not explained in any manner the injuries found on the body of the accused, Physical Education Teacher. This Revision Petition is filed by the Physical Education Teacher against the conviction under Sec. 323, I.P.C. 3. Two main grounds were urged by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner. The first is that the Complainant has not explained in any manner the injuries found on the body of the accused, Physical Education Teacher. The second is that the Magistrate has not taken into consideration the totality of the evidence appearing in both the cases. He therefore contended that the Magistrate has taken a one sided view in this transaction in the course of which obviously both the parties have sustained injuries, without ascertaining which party is the aggressor. 4. The wound certificate obtained by the Physical Education Teacher when he went to the hospital immediately after the occurrence on 2.9.1983 and which was known to the Complainant Headmaster in view of the same having been filed in the Complaint filed by the Physical Education Teacher against the Headmaster, was not referred to by the Complainant in this case. In the evidence of P.W.1, there is not a single reference to any injury caused, either by him or anyone of his party, to the Physical Education Teacher. Even when he was cross-examined on this aspect suggesting that the Physical Education Teacher also was attacked by P.W.1, he flatly denied the same. He did not of that opportunity to give some plausible explanation on that aspect by way of reexamination to show that the Physical Education Teacher was the aggressor in this case and that in the exercise of his private defence, he inflicted some injuries. Instead, he preferred to suppress purely and simply the injuries found on the body of the Physical Education Teacher at the time of the occurrence. The wound certificate of the Physical Education Teacher issued by the Medical Officer of the Government Hospital, Wallajah on the day of the occurrence was brought on record only by the accused in this case, as Ex.D1. 5. When it is made to appear before the Court that the accused has sustained injuries and that the said injuries have not been explained by the prosecuting party either by showing that the accused was the aggressor or that the injuries were caused on him by way of private defence or in any other manner, the evidence of the prosecution becomes shaky. Especially in this case, the conviction is entirely based upon the single evidence of P.W.1 as far as the injuries found on his body are concerned. The other witness P.W.2 comes only at a later point of time and states that he had separated the two persons. Thus, the evidence of the single witness who has not chosen to unfold the entire truth in the matter cannot be acted upon and the conviction based on his testimony is not sustainable. 6. I shall now turn to the next contention of the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner that the trial Court had not taken the right approach in dealing with the rival Complaints of both the parties. It appears that in this case, the Court which was seized of the Complaints of the two rival parties in respect of the same transaction was embarassed and did not know what was the right path. The manner in which such cases could be dealt with has been elaborately gone into Point No.3 in Thota Ramakrishnayya and others v. State, 1954 M.W.N. (Crl.) 9. Those principles are to be read now in combination with the amendments brought about in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The best way to tackle those Complaint and counter-Complaint on the principles of contained in that judgment and up-dated would be as follows: If the Complaint and the counter-Complaint are filed before the Investigating Officer himself, what he should do is clearly adumberated in O. 588-A of the Tamil Nadu Police Standing Orders reproduced below: “588-A. Charge-sheets in cases and counter cases: In a Complaint and counter Complaint obviously arising out of the same transaction the investigating officer should enquire into both of them and adopt one or the other of the two courses, viz., (1) to charge the case where the accused were the aggressors or (2) to refer both the cases if he should find them untrue. When the investigating officer proceeds on the basis of the Complaint it is his duty to exhibit the counter Complaint in the Court and also to prove medical certificates of persons wounded on the opposite side. He should place before the Court a definite case which he seeks it to accept. The investigating officer in such cases should not accept in to one-Complaint and examine only witnesses who support it. He should place before the Court a definite case which he seeks it to accept. The investigating officer in such cases should not accept in to one-Complaint and examine only witnesses who support it. and give no explanation at all for the injuries caused to the other side. The truth in these cases is invariably not in strict conformity with either Complaint and it is quite necessary that all the facts are placed before the Court to enable it to arrive at the truth and a just decision. If the investigating officer finds that the choice of either course is difficult, viz. to charge one of the two cases or to throw out both, he should seek the opinion of the Public Prosecutor of the district and act accordingly. A final report should be sent in respect of the case referred as mistake of law and the Complainant and the counter-Complainant as the case may be should be advised about the disposal by the notice in F.96 and to seek remedy before the specified Magistrate, if he is aggrieved by the disposal of the case by the Police.” If one case comes to the Magistrate and another case goes to the police and it is made known to the Magistrate that a counter case is pending investigation before the Police Officer, the best course for the Magistrate is to forward his case to the Police Officer under the powers conferred on him under Sec.202, Cr.P.C, in which case, the Police Officer will follow the Standing Orders referred to above. If for one reason or the other, both the cases are before the Magistrate, without one having been concerned out by the investigating officer, the Magistrate has to make his preliminary scrutiny of both the cases and discharge the accused in one of the cases, if the records available before him and the information he is entitled to gather before framing the charges, justify such a course. If the above provisions are properly followed, the Magistrate will be rarely in the predicament of trying the case and counter-case in respect of the same transaction. 7. In some rare cases where he finds himself to be in such a predicament, what he should do is, to try those cases separately, but immediately one after the other. If the above provisions are properly followed, the Magistrate will be rarely in the predicament of trying the case and counter-case in respect of the same transaction. 7. In some rare cases where he finds himself to be in such a predicament, what he should do is, to try those cases separately, but immediately one after the other. When the first case is over, he should not pronounce judgment till the trial of the other case is Completed. He cannot legally use the evidence of one case in the other case if it is not on record in the other case. But, if any relevant evidence comes to his notice in one case, which may be used in the other, he has got the power to bring it on record in the proper manner in the other case also. The Magistrate can, at any time of the proceeding till the judgment is delivered, gather further evidence in the case. The Court has got vast powers to this effect under Sec.311, Crl. P.C, and Sec. 165 of the Indian Evidence Act. In that way, one case will not be artificially isolated from the other and thus lead to injustice. The Court can come to the right conclusion in taking all the facts and circumstances of the transaction. The judgments should be pronounced in both the cases at the same time. 8. In the result, this revision petition is allowed and the conviction is set aside.