ORDER P.K. Tripathy, J. - Heard 2. Accused persons in Sessions Trial No. 43/99 of the court of C.J. M.-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge. Khurda have filed this application u/s 407 read with section- 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (in short 'the Code') stating that G.R. Case No. 818 of 1998 (after commitment registered as S.T. Case No. 43 of 1999) and G.R. Case No. 820198 pending in the court of S.D. J.M., Khurda are case and counter case to each other He further states that when an application was filed in the court of C.J. M.-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge. Khurda to hear the cases as case and counter case, learned Assistant Sessions Judge rejected the said two applications vide his order dated 15-5-99 on the ground that no material was placed to ascertain if the said two cases are case and counter case to each other and ( moreover that court had no power to direct for commitment of the other case i. e. G.R. Case No. 820/98. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners states that the facts and circumstances existing in both the case diaries amply prove that both the cases are counter cases to each other and learned Assistant Sessions Judge should have allowed their prayer. Learned Additional Standing Counsel and learned Counsel appearing for other opposite party, on the other hand argue that the impugned order being substantially lawful, it needs no interference. 4. Reference to fact in both the above noted G.R. cases is not necessary to settle the dilema on the legal position in respect of manner in which cross cases should be dealt with and disposed of. At the out set it be indicated that the terms cross-cases', 'counter cases' or case and counter case, in any name it may be called, have not been defined in the Code. When there is a fight between two rival factions which gives rise to registration of two cases one against each of the rival factions, such cases, fin common paralance are termed as 'cross-cases', 'counter cases' or 'case and counter case. 5. The Code doe& not' specifically provides for the manner in which 'trial' of such cases should be undertaken Judicial pronouncement in that, respect is however consistent that as far as 'practicable such cross cases should be fried and decided by the same trial court. 5. The Code doe& not' specifically provides for the manner in which 'trial' of such cases should be undertaken Judicial pronouncement in that, respect is however consistent that as far as 'practicable such cross cases should be fried and decided by the same trial court. The precedent further states, that both the cross cases should.be tried one after the other and judgments in both the cases be pronounced after trial of the later case, is over. In that the caution which the trial court must bear in mind is that, each of the cross-cases be decided on its own merit and on the basis of evidence in respective cases. In otherwords evidence.available in one case cannot be referred to in any manner while deciding the counter case and the vice-versa. In that respect reliance is placed on the cases of Gundi Sahu and Others Vs. State of Orissa and Others Thota Ramakrishnayya and Others Vs. The State. Girijananda Bhattacharyya and Another Vs. The State of Assam and Others, and, Kewal Krishan Vs. Suraj Bhan and Another, . 6. When in the cross-cases the offence involved is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, it poses no difficulty for the Magistrate to commit both the cases to the Court of Session in accordance with the provision' in Section 209 of the Code and thereafter an order by the Sessions Judge for trial of the cross cases by the same trial court. On the other hand if the offences involved are triable by a Magistrate and trial of the two cases are pending before two Magistrate under the same Sessions, Division, Sessions Judge by resorting to the provision in Section 408 may order for transfer of the cases to one Magistrate for disposal according to law and following the above guideline for disposal of cross-cases. However, if the offences involved in one of the cross-cases is exclusively triable by the Court of Session and the other is triable by the court of Magistrate, then the Sessions Court has no jurisdiction to pass order for commitment of the later case (triable by the Magistrate) to the court of Session. That view has been taken by this Court in the case of Gundi Sahu (supra). That view has been taken by this Court in the case of Gundi Sahu (supra). In view of that the order dated 15-5-1999 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge in rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner is found to be correct and therefore the same is not liable to be interfered with. 7. Notwithstanding the above situation, Petitioners are left not without any remedy. In such a situation, this Court in exercise of the power u/s 407 of the Code can pass appropriate orders. In that respect, reference may be made to Sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) in Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) in Section 407 as quoted below. 407. Power of High Court to transfer cases and appeals- Whenever it is made to appear to the High Court (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx (c) that an order under this section is required by any provision of this Code, or will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or is expedient for' the ends of justice it may order (i) xxx xxx xxx (ii) that any particular case or appeal or class of cases or appeals, be transferred from a Criminal court subordinate to its authority to any other such Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction; (iii) that any particular case be committed for trial to a Court of Session; (iv) xxx xxx (Underlined to put emphasis) So far as the present case is concerned, power u/s 407 is invocable when this Court fees it is expedient for the ends of justice to pass an order as provided in above quoted sub-clause (ii) and (iii). In the case of Gundi Sahu (Supra) a similar view has been expressed by this Court. 8. Petitioners have filed xerox copies of F.I.R. in Tangi P.S. Case No. 161(12) dated 23-10-98 and Tangi' P.S. Case No. 162(13) dated 23-10-98. Petitioners are the accused persons in G.R. Case No. 818 of 1998 (Sessions Trial. No. 43/99) arising out" of above noted P.S. Case No. 161 whereas Petitioner No. 3 Kanduri Charan Behera is the informant in G.R. Case No. 820 of 1998 arising out of P.S. Case No. 162. Except the two first information reports no other document or materials in the respective case diaries are available to resolve the dispute whether the said two cases are case and counter case. Except the two first information reports no other document or materials in the respective case diaries are available to resolve the dispute whether the said two cases are case and counter case. However, the problem can be solved by issuing proper direction, which, for all practical purpose and intent,be regarded as an order of this Court u/s 407 read with Section 482 of the Code. 9. It is thus directed that both the parties shall appear before the C.J. M.-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Khurda on 12th January, 2000 A.D.,and a copy of this order be produced in that Court by the Petitioners. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, shall fix a date for hearing on the matter as to whether the above two cases are case and counter case. On 12th January itself learned Assistant Sessions Judge shall issue requisition for the case record of G.R. Case No. 820 of 1998 from the court of S.D. J.M., Khurda and the same be made available to the Asst. Sessions Judge within two days from the date of receiving requisition by the S.D. J.M. Upon hearing the parties and perusal of the case diaries, learned Asst. Sessions Judge shall decide whether the said cases are counter cases. It be decided by him within a month from 12th January, 2000. If he shall find them to be case and counter' case, then by virtue of this direction from this Court, he shall direct the S.D. J.M. to commit G.R. Case No. 820 of 1998 to the Court of Session. Such direction of the Assistant Sessions Judge shall be complied by the S.D. J.M. as far as practicable within fifteen days from the gate of receipt of that order along with the case record of G.R. Case No. 820 of 1998. In the event of commitment, the Court of Session, shall transfer the case to the C.J. M.-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge for trial and, disposal according to law. Since both the parties have undertaken to appear in the court of Assistant Sessions Judge on 12-1-2000 no notice need be given to them for: appearance or for participation in the hearing. If the opposite party, in this case, shall fail to appear, the matter be heard and disposed of after hearing the Petitioners and the prosecutor. Since both the parties have undertaken to appear in the court of Assistant Sessions Judge on 12-1-2000 no notice need be given to them for: appearance or for participation in the hearing. If the opposite party, in this case, shall fail to appear, the matter be heard and disposed of after hearing the Petitioners and the prosecutor. However, if the Petitioners shall fail or default in their appearance and for participation in hearing, learned Assistant Sessions Judge shall not proceed with the manner indicted above and he shall return the case record of G R. Case No. 820 of 1998 to the Court of S.D. J.M. for disposal according to law. Petitioners may bear it in mind that, thereafter, neither this Court nor the Court below shall entertain same or similar prayer. It may further be mentioned that direction contained in this paragraph shall have no force of a precedent and it is confined to this case only. 10. In the event both the cases are decided to be tried as case and counter case, then trial of the cases be completed and judgments delivered in the manner indicated in this judgment. 11. The Criminal Misc. case is disposed of accordingly. Criminal Misc. case disposed of.