JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition under section. 397/401 Criminal Penal Code is directed against the order dated 20.7.2002 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Merta in Sessions Case No. 50/2002 (2/2001) whereby the learned Judge has ordered trial of the case triable by Magistrate along with Sessions Case No. 39/2002 while exercising his powers under section. 228 Criminal Penal Code. 2. The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this revision are that an occurrence took place on the night of 1.3.1999. Two FIRs were got registered about this incident. The FIR No. 49/99 was registered for the offences under sections. 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 452, 307 & 302 Indian Penal Code on the basis of statement of Chhotu Lal recorded by the police in the hospital after receiving telephonic information from the Medical Officer. Another FIR being No. 50/99 was registered for the offences under sections. 147, 148, 452, 323, 307/149 IPC by Mohan Lal on 2.3.1999. After investigation, the police submitted the F.R. in case FIR No. 50/99 holding that it was got registered as a counter of defence to the earlier FIR No. 49/99. The complainant filed a protest petition in that case before the Court thereupon after making necessary enquiry, the learned Magistrate took cognizance on 27.11.2000 for the alleged offences. The order of taking cognizance was challenged by way of a revision petition before this Court. The revision petition was dismissed with the observation that the petitioners may raise the grounds sought to be raised before this Court before the learned trial Court at the time of framing of the charges. In the meanwhile, the case was committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge who after hearing the parties on the question of framing of the charges, discharged the accused persons of all the alleged offences. Mohan Lal, the complainant, approached this Hon'ble Court in revision which was allowed on 21.8.2001 and the order of discharging the accused persons was quashed and set aside and the learned Sessions Judge was directed to frame charges for whatever offences that may appear from the record against petitioner-Chhotu Lal only. However, the learned Court below was given the liberty to summon other accused persons under section. 319 Criminal Penal Code, if after recording of the evidence, any more persons were found to be involved in the said offences. However, the learned Court below was given the liberty to summon other accused persons under section. 319 Criminal Penal Code, if after recording of the evidence, any more persons were found to be involved in the said offences. The learned Sessions Judge summoned petitioner-Chhotu Lal and after hearing the parties on the question of framing of the charges and on the basis of the available record, framed charge for the offence uls. 326 IPC against him but instead of transferring the case to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate directed that the case be tried along with the Sessions Case arising out of FIR No. 49/99 as both these cases were cross cases and it was just and proper to try and decide both these cases together. The said order has been impugned in this revision petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order as well as record of both the cases. 4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that these two cases are not cross cases. The place of occurrence in both the cases is different. According to him, in FIR No. 49/99, the occurrence has been shown to have taken place in the house of petitioner-Chhotu Lal whereas in the case FIR No. 50/99, the occurrence has been shown to have taken place in the house of Pukhraj. He has further contended that FIR No. 50/99 has been got registered as a counter or defence to the case FIR No. 49/99 as has been found by the police after investigation also. He has submitted that the trial in the Sessions case arising out of FIR No. 49/99 is at its fag end as almost all the witnesses in that case have already been examined. If this case arising out of FIR No. 50/99, which is triable by a Magistrate, is allowed to be tried along with the aforesaid Sessions Case, the decision in the Sessions case would be unnecessarily delayed and the accused persons in that case may try to seek their release on bail on this ground which would not be in the interest of justice. This apart, in case, this case is allowed to be tried along with the Sessions Case, one valuable that of revision before this Court would be denied to the accused- petitioner. This apart, in case, this case is allowed to be tried along with the Sessions Case, one valuable that of revision before this Court would be denied to the accused- petitioner. In this regard, he has relied upon the case of Sanwal Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1995 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 411 , wherein the alleged incidents had taken place at different places and at different times and, therefore, it was held that by no stretch of imagination, it could be said that the aforesaid incidents were committed in the same course of transaction. It has been urged on the basis of this authority that the case arising out of FIR No. 50/99 may be held to be not a cross case of the case arising out of FIR No. 49/99 and the same may be ordered to be tried by Chief Judicial Magistrate.Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant have both strongly supported the impugned order of the learned Court below. They have strenuously argued that both these cases have arisen out of the same occurrence which admittedly took place at 9.00 p.m. They have also pointed out that in the written arguments submitted before the Court below, the petitioner has himself mentioned that these cases were cross cases. Even in the bail application moved before the Court below, the petitioner has taken the plea that these cases were cross cases. They have also submitted that this Court while deciding the revision petitions being S.B. Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 341/2001 and 240/2001 on 21.8.2001, observed more than once that these two cases are cross cases. Distinguishing the case of Sanwal Ram (supra) they have also submitted that it is apparent from a bare perusal of the said judgment that the alleged incident in one case had taken place between 12.00 noon and 1.00 p.m. on the Parat Gochar laid near the boundary of village Nawa Guda wherein the accused persons including the petitioner were alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly and inflicted simple and grievous injuries to the complainant party and the said incident was witnessed by a separate set of witnesses but another incident though it had allegedly taken place on the same day but it had taken place at 3.00 p.m. at the Bada of Gunda Ram's field situated in Village Nawa Guda. According to them, these were two separate incidents at two separate places. The witnesses and the accused persons were also different in those cases and, therefore, the Court had rightly held that they were not cross-cases whereas in the instant case, these two cases have arisen from the same incident which took place at 9.00 p.m. 5. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. 6. A bare perusal of the FIRs Nos. 49/99 and 50/99 clearly reveals that the occurrence in both the cases had taken place at 9.00 p.m. on 1.3.1999 in Sojati Gate area of Merta. Though in one case, the alleged occurrence is alleged to have taken place in the house of Chhotu Lal and in another case, it is alleged to have taken place in the house of Pukhraj but in any case, the facts reveal that the incident had taken place in the course of same transaction and at the same time and on the same date. It is well settled principle of law that such cross-cases as far as practicable ought to be tried and decided simultaneously to avoid conflicting findings though by separate judgments and on the basis of the evidence and material available on each file as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nathi Lal & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., reported in 1999 Cr.L.R. (SC) 139 . 7. In the case of Sudhir & Ors. v. State of M.P. & Ors., reported in 2001 Cr.L.R. (SC) 212 , it has been observed as under : "It is a salutary practice when two criminal cases relate to the same incident, they are tried and disposed of by the same Court by pronouncing judgments on the same day." 8. It cannot be disputed that a sessions Judge has the power to try any offence under the Indian Penal Code as is evident from Section 26 Cr.P.C. Section 228(1) Cr.P.C. also does not make it obligatory on the Sessions Judge to transfer the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate after framing a charge against the accused. It only give him the discretion to do so and, therefore, the learned Court below having retained the case for trial in its Court after framing the charge for the offence under section. It only give him the discretion to do so and, therefore, the learned Court below having retained the case for trial in its Court after framing the charge for the offence under section. 326 Indian Penal Code against the petitioner has not committed any error or illegality. 9. In the instant case either party is claiming that the incident had taken place in his house and this is precisely the reason why these two cases ought to be tried together so that the Court may come to a correct conclusion as to who is stating the truth, who is the aggressor, who is the victim and who had a right of private defence in this case. The learned Court below has clearly observed so in the impugned order. The petitioner has in his written arguments submitted before the Court below clearly mentioned that these are the cross cases. He has in his bail application also taken the stand that these are cross cases. This Court has also in the case of Mohan Lal v. Chhotu Lal & Ors., reported in 2002(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 152 referred to these cases more than once as cross-cases. So now, the petitioner cannot be allowed to retract from his earlier stand. From the available material on record, these two cases are found to be cross-cases and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Court below with regard to trying and deciding both these cases simultaneously cannot be found fault with. 10. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to denial of his right of revision is concerned, it may be stated that the right of revision is not a vested right like the right of appeal, which is a vested right provided under the Statute. The power of revision is that of the Court and, therefore, this grievance also is not tenable. 11. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any error, illegality, impropriety or perversity in the impugned order. Indeed, the order of the Court below is not only just, proper and legal but is also in keeping with the law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this behalf.In this view of the matter, no case for interference in the impugned order in revisional jurisdiction of this Court is made out and appears to be justified and warranted. 12. Hence, this petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has then submitted that the learned Court below may be directed to expedite the trial of the case arising out of FIR No. 50/99 so that the accused persons in the case arising out of FIR No. 49/99 may not have to wait for judgment for long. This prayer appears to be just and reasonable and deserves to be allowed. 14. Accordingly, it is directed that the learned trial Court shall expedite the trial of the case arising out of FIR No. 50/99 and shall endeavour to complete it at the earliest possible by fixing the case and summoning all the witnesses in the case by fixing dates in advance for their appearance.Petition dismissed *******