Judgment : This is a revision petition by six accused, who stand convicted and sentenced. Originally, there were ten accused. Accused 5, 7, 8 and 9 have been acquitted and accused 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 10 are the petitioners herein. The accused have been convicted and sentenced by the Courts below as follows: 2. The ground urged by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that in this case there was a counter-complaint, and though the counter complaint was marked by the prosecution as Ex.P8and though the inquiry sustained by accused 1 was referred to in Ex.P2 and also spoken to in his examination by the Doctor, P.W.12, the Investigating Officer has not followed scrupulously the instructions contained in the Madras Police Standing Orders (588-A) inasmuch as he has not at all investigated into the case put forth in Ex.P8 by accused 1 and has also not sent any report to the complainant that, he has referred the case as a mistake of law and hence the abovesaid conviction should be set aside. 3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would not dispute the fact that there was no investigation into the complaint, Ex.P8, and that no report was sent in respect thereto, but would contend that it will not vitiate the prosecution. 4. Though accused 1 filed a complaint and now complains that it was not investigated into, he has not chosen to say when he was examined under Sec.313, Cr.P.C., to put forth his case as it appeared in Ex.P8 and lead evidence if necessary or seek support for his case in the evidence let in by the prosecution. Having failed to do so, he cannot now take advantage of the failures of the investigating officer, for having the convictions set aside, the convictions based on the depositions of witnesses which have been tested by the cross examination. I do not see any error in the concurrent finding arrived at by the Courts below. 5. However, it is to be noted that, as per G.O.Ms.No.180, Home (Prisons IV), dated 28.1.1989, in respect of non-life convicts the State government has granted remission of six months of imprisonment. The present petitioners are all sentenced for six months or less. Therefore, they would get the benefit of that order and they will not have to undergo any sentence of imprisonment. 6. The present petitioners are all sentenced for six months or less. Therefore, they would get the benefit of that order and they will not have to undergo any sentence of imprisonment. 6. Before parting with this case, it appears to me necessary to have a close look at the Madras Police Standing Order 588-A, which reads as follows:, 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 asks it to accept. The investigating officer in such cases should not accept in toto 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 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 caseref erred as mistake of law and the complaint or the counter-complaint, as the case may be, should be advised about the disposal by a notice in Sec.96 and to seek remedy before the specified Magistrate, if he is aggrieved by the disposal of the case by the Police." This order contains very salutory provision, but there are two points which in my considered opinion require reconsideration. In the first place, it allowed to the investigating officer the choice only between two courses. In the first place, it allowed to the investigating officer the choice only between two courses. There may be cases in which both the parties should be brought before the Court for the offences committed by them. The Police has felt the lacuna and now they are bringing sometimes both parties before the Court for the offence of affray. But that may not be fully suitable because affray is a very minor offence and when serious injuries have been inflicted and even death occurred, as in the present case, it will not be sufficient to indict the culprits from both sides only for an offence of affray. 7. Thesecond point which needs reconsideration is that the order enjoins the investigating officer to charge the case, where the accused were the aggressors. Here also the aggression may be of various kinds. The transaction may start by wordly quarrel, then come some minor acts of violence, then stronger acts of violence without any weapon, then weapons of more or less dangerous nature come into play. All occurrences are not of the same type and the sequence of events vary considerably. So at what stage the real aggression started is some times difficult to determine. 8. Therefore, it should be open to the investigating officer to adopt a third course also, viz., charging both parties, arraying them as "A" Party and "B" Party each of the offences committed by them and unfolding before the Court the whole sequence of events as they happened. Then it will be easy for the Court to fix the exact responsibility of each one of them for his acts. No doubt in such a case it would be open to the parties to resort to compounding when it is permissible or to plead self-defence whenever it is justified. If impartial investigation has been made and if the investigating officer has come to his truth and indicted each party according to his overt acts, there may. not be great difficulty for having the truth unfolded before the Court, because the accused in one case will be the prosecution witness in the other one hand and, therefore, subjected to cross-examination. So three courses should be open to the Investigating Officer: (1) If there is clear aggression by one party, positive report under Sec.173, can be filed against that party and negative report may be filed against the other. So three courses should be open to the Investigating Officer: (1) If there is clear aggression by one party, positive report under Sec.173, can be filed against that party and negative report may be filed against the other. (2) If both parties have been in aggressive mood, without possibility to determine the aggressor and if the sequence of events is clear and offences have been committed by each of the party without any justification, to file positive reports under Sec.173 against both the parties. (3) If none of the above two courses is possible to file negative reports in respect of both the cases. This is a matter to be considered in depth. At any rate, the present provisions of S.O.588-A are deficient to some extent and a proper solution has to be arrived at so that each one is indicted and punished for the act he has committed and for which he has no excuse. 9. In the result, the convictions are confirmed and the sentences are declared to have been remitted. The revision is dismissed with the above observations.