S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) - This is an application under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. ( 2 ) PETITIONERS are accused facing their trial in the court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bolangir in Sessions Case No. 78/1-6 of 1985-86. On 29-9- 1986, an application was filed for adjournment of trial till commitment of LC. C. No. 66 of 1985 in the court of the Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bolangir, claiming the same to be a counter case to the prosecution in the Sessions Case. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge called for the records of I. C. C. No. 66 of 1985 for determination whether the same is a counter case. On 25-10-1986, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge persued the record of the complaint case and held: It appears from the complaint filed by Binayak Misra (accused in this case), that Bhagaban Bagarty who is injured in the S. C. Case No. 78-1 of 85-86 and Bharat Bagarty, informant in the Sessions Case assaulted the accused persons on 30-5-85 at about the same time of the occurrence. On perusal of the records of both the cases, it is found that the I. C. C. Case is counter to the said S. C. No. 78-1 of 85-86. Hence, the petition for adjournment till commitment of the counter case I. C. C. Case No. 66 of 1985 or disposal of that case by the S. D. J. M. Bolangir since the same is still at the stage of enquiry, is allowed TI ( 3 ) ON each of the subsequent dates trial was adjourned awaiting commitment of the counter case. On 21-12-1987 a report was called for from the court of Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows: TI This is a long pending case for non commitment of the counter case from the court of S. D. J. M. Balangir. Inform the S. D. J. M. to intimate this court by 25-1-88 the stage in which the case IS posted and if the committal proceeding cannot be completed by that date, he should intimate this court for necessary action at this end TI The case was adjourned for several dates thereafter awaiting the intimation from the court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate. Lastly, on 16-4-1088, learned Sessions Judge adjourned the case to 21-4-1988 awaiting intimation for further orders. Lastly, on 16-4-1088, learned Sessions Judge adjourned the case to 21-4-1988 awaiting intimation for further orders. On 21-4-1988 before receipt of any intimation the case was posted for trial to 6-6-1988 and 7-6-1988 which is the grievance of the petitioner in this application. ( 4 ) AT the time of considering the question of entertaining the petition. I directed issue of notice and to call for the records of the Sessions Case. I directed that the witnesses may be examined but the judgment shall not be delivered till 2 1-6-1988 directing the matter to be listed on 20-6-1988 for admission. The informant was intimated in the notice that the application would be finally disposed of at the stage of admission. ( 5 ) IN course of hearing, Mr. P. K. Misra, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the accused persons had approached this Court to quash the cognizance taken in the complaint case in Criminal Revision No. 218 of 1988. On perusal of the record in Criminal Revision No. 218 of 1988, I find from the certified copy of the order dated 27-2-1988 in the complaint case, that the learned Sub divisional Magistrate has taken cognizance for offence under sections 148/324/326/435/149 I. P. C. and has directed issue of process against the opposite party No. 2 the informant in the Sessions trial and others. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Revision was permitted to withdraw the revision. Thus, at present, there is no difficulty in commitment of the complaint case. ( 6 ) SUPREME Court in a case reported in Akhlaq Islam and others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh1 observed: Wherever, as in the present case, the parties are prosecuted for attack on each other in the same occurrence and there are counter cases with counter versions both trials should be held separately; but, one after the other, by the same Judge who should not pronounce judgment still after both cases are heard and finished TI Decisions reported in Krishna Pannadi v. Emperor2, Lakshminarayana and others v. Suryanarayana3, Ujagar Singh v. Emperor4 and Banappa Kallappa Ajewan and others v. Emperor5 have been approved by the Supreme Court. A Division Bench of this Court has held in the decision reported in Kalandi Behera and 7 others v. The state. 6 In 1962 Mys. A Division Bench of this Court has held in the decision reported in Kalandi Behera and 7 others v. The state. 6 In 1962 Mys. L. J. 134, their Lord ships 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, and the same would apply to appeal also TI In Gandi Sahu and others v. State of Orissa and others7 referring to the decision of the Supreme Court and of this Court the power under Section 407 (1) (c) Cr. P. C. was exercised and in the interest of justice and for convenience of parties the prosecution pending before the Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate was directed to be committed to the Court of Session for being duly tried by the same Judge one after the other in accordance with law. This is the consistent view of this court. See Maheswar Lenka and others v. The States8, Mohamed Ayub v. State and four others9, Khageswar Das and others v. Gandharba Dass and other1 and Nishakar Panigrahi v. Kulqmani Dixit and others11. ( 7 ) IN view of the aforesaid facts and law the learned Assistant Sessions Judge rightly waited for the commitment of the complaint case and while fixing the dates for recording evidence by order dated 21-4-1988, he ought to have given reasons for deciding to depart from the earlier decision. The order dated 21-4-1988 cannot be sustained which is vacated. ( 8 ) FROM the orders, I find that on 6-6-1988 and 7-6-1988, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge was absent on casual leave though lie summoned witnesses. It is to be administratively examined, if the absence on casual leave on a date when witnesses in a Sessions trial have been summoned was proper. Unless the absence was beyond avoidance, the liesurely dealing with trial of sessions cases cannot be supported since public policy is expeditious trial. It is, however, found in this case except one witness present on 7-6-1988, the witnesses summoned did not turn-up though Summons were served. ( 9 ) IN the result, the application is allowed. Unless the absence was beyond avoidance, the liesurely dealing with trial of sessions cases cannot be supported since public policy is expeditious trial. It is, however, found in this case except one witness present on 7-6-1988, the witnesses summoned did not turn-up though Summons were served. ( 9 ) IN the result, the application is allowed. The Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bolangir is directed to commit I. C. C. Case No. 66 of 1985 and on commitment, the case is transferred to the court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Bolangir before whom Sessions Case No. 78-1/6 of 1985-86 is pending trial. Both the cases are directed to be tried one after the other and after completion of trial of both the cases in accordance with law. Send back the lower court records immediately.