MALAY KUMAR BASU, J. ( 1 ) THIS revisional application is directed against the order dated 22nd July, 1988 passed by the learned S. D. J. M. , Kalna rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to transfer G. R. Case No. 134 of 1985 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 379 and 323 of the I. P. C. pending before that Court to the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Burdwan for trial along with G. R. Case No. 133 of 1985 under Section 304 of the I. P. C. which was exclusively sessions triable and was pending before the latter Court for trial. ( 2 ) IT is the contention of the petitioner that both the cases having arisen out of the same incident, must be tried together otherwise their separate trial may lead not only to multiplicity of proceedings but also to conflict of decisions. In support of this contention, Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, relies upon two decisions of the Apex Court. One and another reported in 2001 Cri. L. R. (SC) 241. In the former case it has been held that if two cases exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions arising out of the same transaction, are tried by two different Courts, there is a risk of two Courts coming to conflicting findings and to obviate such a risk, it is ordinarily desirable that the two cases should be tried separately but by the same Court. In the latter case, it has been held by their Lordships that even where one case is sessions triable and the other is triable by the Magistrate but they having arisen out of the same transaction, it is the salutary principle that such two cases, sometimes called case and counter-case, should be tried by the same Court because according to their Lordships, when two criminal cases relate to the same incident, if they are not tried and disposed of by the same Court by pronouncing the judgment on the same day, two different versions may come out in case of their separate trial by separate Courts. Hence it was the mandate of their Lordships that in such an exigency such pair of cases arising out of the same transaction must be heard and disposed of by the same Court and the judgments are to be pronounced on the same day, although however there is no necessity that they should be tried analogously or together. ( 3 ) MR. Roy, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State, has not been able to dispute this position of law but he worries that after 12 years of pendency if at this juncture step is not taken for an early disposal of the cases, then the plight of the parties is anybody's guess. ( 4 ) IN view of the aforesaid settled position of law, there cannot be any doubt that these two cases having admittedly arisen out the same incident, cannot be allowed to be taken up for trial by two separate Courts and they must be tried by the same Court and the judgments must be pronounced by that Court in respect of both the cases after their trial is over on the same day. ( 5 ) THE revisional application is accordingly allowed. The impugned order of the learned Magistrate be set aside. ( 6 ) BOTH the cases, namely, the G. R. Case No. 133 of 1985 under Section 304 of the I. P. C. and the G. R. Case No. 134 of 1985 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 379 and 323 of the I. P. C. be tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Burdwan being taken up one after another and being tried in the same sitting though separately so that the judgments of both the cases are finally pronounced on the same day. ( 7 ) OFFICE is directed to communicate this order to the Courts below forthwith and the learned trial Court after taking up both the matters for trial as per above direction shall ensure expeditious disposal of these two old cases, preferably within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. ( 8 ) OFFICE shall communicate this order and submit a report of compliance before within a week from the date of receipt of this record. Interim orders, if any, be vacated.