Order Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai in Crl.M.P.No.279 of 1999 in S.C.No.36 of 1998, rejecting the request of the petitioners-accused seeking long adjournment of the case, the petitioners have come forward with the instant criminal revision. 2. The case of the petitioners is that on 13.2.1997, there had been an occurrence, regarding which the police registered Crime No.38 of 1997 against the petitioners herein and also Crime No.39 of 1997 against certain other persons based on a petition preferred by one of the accused. The investigating officer investigated both the matters, but filed charge-sheet in Crime No.38 of 1997 to the effect that the petitioners herein have committed offence under Secs.147, 148, 324, 326 and 302, I.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai, took the case on file on 15.10.1997 and committed the same to the Court of Sessions on 29.6.1998. The case was transferred by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pudukottai to the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai on 9.7.1998. The charges were framed against the petitioners herein on 11.9.1998 and the case is pending trial. 3. The further case of the petitioners is that the investigating officer referred the case in Crime No.39 of 1997 as mistake of fact. No refer notice was given to the complaint and therefore, the complainant therein, namely the first petitioners herein preferred a private complaint under Sec.200, Crl.P.C. against nine persons contending that they have committed offence punishable under Secs.147, 148, 307, 326, 324 and 323, I.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pudukottai, took cognizance of the matter in C.C.No.549 of 1997, following the procedures laid down under Sec.202, Crl.P.C. 4. Now, the petitioners have approached the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai, on whose file, S.C.No.36 of 1998 is pending, seeking adjournment of the case till C.C.No.549 of 1998 is also committed to the same Court. Though the scope of the instant petition is limited, I feel, it would be expedient to go into the question whether C.C.No.549 of 1998 is to be committed to the sessions. If so, what is the procedure to be adopted by the trial Court to obviate the difficulties. 5. In Abdul Rasheed IN RE. Though the scope of the instant petition is limited, I feel, it would be expedient to go into the question whether C.C.No.549 of 1998 is to be committed to the sessions. If so, what is the procedure to be adopted by the trial Court to obviate the difficulties. 5. In Abdul Rasheed IN RE. 1982 L.W. (Crl.) 105, a question arose when regarding same transaction, a sessions case and a calendar case arose, the calendar case is to be tried by the Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Court should try the sessions case without reference to each other case. When such contingency arises, the matter was referred to by a lower court to the High Court. M.N.Moorthy, J. dealt with the matter and the learned Judge has expressed the view that the calendar case can be converted into P.R. case and the Judicial Magistrate should commit the same to the Sessions Court to be tried by that court. I agree with view expressed by the learned Judge in the decision cited supra. 6. Once when two different cause of action have arisen out of a single incident, in all fairness and in the interest of justice, the case and the counter case should be tried by the same Judge to avoid conflict of decisions. 7. The next question is what is the procedure that the Sessions Court has to adopt in proceeding with the trial. The Supreme Court expressed a doubt whether the evidence recorded in one criminal case can be treated as evidence in another case, even with the consent of the accused. The Apex Court has issued specific guidelines in Nathi Lal and others v. State of U.P. and another, 1990 S.C.C. (Crl.) 638 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have pointed out as under: “2. We think that the fair procedure to adopt in a matter like the present where there are cross cases, is to direct that the same learned Judge must try both the cross cases one after the other. After the recording of evidence in one case is completed, he must hear the arguments but he must reserve the judgment Thereafter, he must proceed to hear the cross case and after recording all the evidence he must hear the arguments but reserve the judgment in the case. The same learned Judge must thereafter dispose of the matters by two separate judgments. The same learned Judge must thereafter dispose of the matters by two separate judgments. In deciding each of the cases, he can rely only on the evidence recorded in that particular case. The evidence recorded in the cross case cannot be looked into. Nor can the judge be influenced by whatever is argued in the cross case. Each cast must be decided on the basis of the evidence which has been placed on record in that particular case without being influenced in any manner by the evidence or arguments urged in the cross case. But both the judgments must be pronounced by the same learned Judge one after the other.” 8. Therefore, the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate has to try both the cases independently. Now, a counter case is pending. I feel, the learned District Judge-cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai ought to have adjourned the sessions case for a long adjournment till the committal proceedings in C.C.No.549 of 1998 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pudukottai is directed to assign a P.R. number to C.C.No.549 of 1998 and commit the same to the Sessions Court expeditiously. Till then, the further proceedings in S.C.No.36 of 1998 on the file of the Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai, shall stand adjourned. This criminal revision is ordered accordingly. Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.2250 of 1999 is closed. Petition allowed.