DEBIPRASAD SENGUPTA. J. ( 1 ) THE learned Advocate for the petitioners filed the affidavit of service, from which it appears that out of 23 opposite parties 18 opposite parties were duly served. In spite of service none appears for the accused opposite parties. Mrs. Krishna Ghosh, learned Advocate appears on behalf of the State. The matter is taken up for hearing. ( 2 ) IT appears that Basanti P. S. Case No. 3 (6) 84 was started on the basis of an information lodged by one Jakarta Molla against the accused opposite parties alleging commission of an offence under Sections 147/ 148/ 149/ 324/325 of the Indian Penal Code. On completion of investigation Police submitted charge-sheet being charge sheet No. 41 dated 28-7-1986 under Sections 147/148/149/324/325 of the Indian Penal Code. The said case is now pending in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore. 24 Parganas (South ). ( 3 ) OVER the self-same incident another case was registered with Basanti Police Station being Basanti P. S. Case No. 3 (6) 84 on the basis of an information lodged by one Mokadder Khan (Opposite party No. 1 in the present revisional application) against the present petitioners and 13 others. In the said case charge-sheet was submitted by the police under Sections 147/148/149/325/379/302 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners and 20 others. As the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions the case was committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, South 24-Parganas at Alipore and is numbered as S. C. Case No. 2 (8) 97 S. T. No. 4 (9) 97. ( 4 ) THE learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid two cases being a case and a counter case over the self-same incident in the interest of justice and to avoid conflicting judgments upon similar facts both the cases should be tried by the same Presiding Officer. ( 5 ) I have carefully gone through the relevant papers in both the cases and found that both the case and the counter case are arising out of the same incident. In my view the proper course is to try the cases one after another by the same Presiding Officer. ( 5 ) I have carefully gone through the relevant papers in both the cases and found that both the case and the counter case are arising out of the same incident. In my view the proper course is to try the cases one after another by the same Presiding Officer. If a case is committed to the Court of Sessions, the counter case arising out of the same incident should also be committed to the Court of Sessions although the later case is not triable by the Court of Sessions. The case and the counter case should be tried by the same Presiding Officer in quick succession. The first case should be tried to the conclusion of the trial, but the judgment should be kept reserved till the second case is concluded. Thereafter the judgment of the two cases should be pronounced separately. ( 6 ) WITH the above observation, I direct that the case arising out of Basanti P. S. Case No. 3 (6) 84 (BGR Case No. 1996 of 1984) pending before the learned. Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore to be sent to the Court to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Alipure, where the Sessions Trial Case No. 4 (9) 97 [s. C. Case No. 2 (8)/97] is pending. The learned Sessions Judge shall hear out the matter separately and after conclusion of the trial of the first case, he will keep the judgment reserved till the trial of the second case is concluded and thereafter the judgment of the two cases would be delivered separately. I also make it clear that the learned Sessions Judge will confine his judgment of each case to the evidence led in that particular case and shall not make use of the evidence in one case for the purpose of judgment in the other case. The learned Sessions Judge will not allow his findings in one case to be influenced to the prejudice of the accused by the views which he may have formed in the other case. ( 7 ) THE application under section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is thus allowed. I also direct the learned trial Judge to conclude the trial of the above cases as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of communication of this order. ( 7 ) THE application under section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is thus allowed. I also direct the learned trial Judge to conclude the trial of the above cases as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of communication of this order. ( 8 ) LET this order be communicated to the Court below by Special Messenger at the cost of the petitioners as prayed for. The requisites to be put in by the petitioners by tomorrow. Petition allowed.