P. N. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revisional application is directed against the order dated 3. 12. 03 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Nadia in Sessions case No. 13 (9) of 2003 thereby rejecting petitioner's prayer to stay the said sessions case till the counter case being Nakashipara P. S. Case No. 26/2003 is transferred to the said Court. ( 2 ) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioner contended that over incident dated 15. 2. 03 case and counter case was started at Nakashipara Police Station being nakashipara P. S. Case No. 25 dated 15. 2. 03 and Nakashipara P. S. Case No. 26 dated 16. 2. 03. This petitioner was made an accused in Nakashipara P. S. Case No. 25 dated 15. 2. 03. After completing investigation the police submitted chargesheet in both the said cases and the Nakashipara P. S. Case No 25/2003 has already been committed to the Court of Sessions and after transfer to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court it has been registered as s. C. Case No. 13 (9) of 2003. An application was filed on behalf of this petitioner to stay the said sessions case till the counter case being Nakashipara P. S. Case no. 26/2003 is committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the same court for disposal, but the learned Judge has rejected the said application by order dated 3. 12. 03. ( 3 ) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioner further contended that the Supreme court as well as this Court has made it clear in different decisions that case and counter case should be tried by the same Court and the judgments of both the cases should be delivered on same day one after another. He contended that both the cases should be tried by the same Court and it is desirable that trial should also start in both the case at the same time, so that, the learned judge can see the witnesses of both cases and can watch their demeanout which would help the learned Judge to assess the evidence of both the cases as to which one is true and, which one is not true. It will help learned Judge to arrive at just decision and he can deliver the judgment of both the cases on same day one after another. It will help learned Judge to arrive at just decision and he can deliver the judgment of both the cases on same day one after another. ( 4 ) LEARNED Advocate for the State contended that the law as laid down by the supreme Court prescribes that case and counter case should be tried by same court one after another and the judgment of both the cases should be delivered on same day one after another. The Supreme Court nowhere said that trial of both the cases should continue simultaneously. The Supreme Court also did not observe that till the counter case reaches stage of evidence, the other case which reached the evidence stage earlier should be stayed. Therefore, the order of the learned Judge requires no interference. The learned Judge may proceed with the trial of Sessions case No. 13 (9) of 2003 but, should not deliver the judgment till the counter case also reaches the stage of delivery of judgment. ( 5 ) I have duly considered the submissions of the learned Advocates of both parties and I have perused the revisional application and annexures made therein. It appears from the copy of papers particularly, annexure P-3 which is fir of Nakashipara P. S. Case No. 25 dated 15. 2. 03 that one Nurjahan Bibi of village Dhaparia, Dakshinpara lodged the FIR. It was alleged by her that her brother's (Na Bhai) wife Narami Bibi went away with one Asar Sheikh of same village. On 14. 2. 03 night Asar Sheikh returned to his father's house and on next day i. e. on 15. 2. 03 at about 3. 00 p. m. quarrel ensued between Asar Sheikh and brothers of Narami Bibi. When the quarrel was in progress, at about 4. 00 p. m. , the informant taking his brother Mofe Molla and his wife Alifa Bibi went near the house of Asar Sheikh, when she found that Asar Sheikh was coming from opposite direction towards them. At that time Mofe Molla told Asar to go to 'para' and also told that he would not allow Asar Sheikh to go away. Instantly asar Sheikh fired from pipe gun at the chest of Mofe Molla and, Mofe Molla who was on cycle fell down receiving the gun shot injury along with his cycle and instantly expired. At that time Mofe Molla told Asar to go to 'para' and also told that he would not allow Asar Sheikh to go away. Instantly asar Sheikh fired from pipe gun at the chest of Mofe Molla and, Mofe Molla who was on cycle fell down receiving the gun shot injury along with his cycle and instantly expired. ( 6 ) ANNEXURE P-1 i. e. FIR of Nakashipara P. S. Case No. 26 dated 16. 2. 03 reveals that one Rajab Ali Sheikh lodged FIR alleging that Asar Sheikh is his nephew by relation. Hearing news of dispute in Asar Sheikh's house he went to the village of Asar Sheikh arid learnt that concerning taking away of Narami bibi, wife of Emauddin Molla by Asar Sheikh, there was a quarrel in village dhananjaipur Uttarpara and, he was attacked and assaulted by the accused persons with brick-bats, lathi etc. Asar Sheikh's mother Parbati Bewa tried to save Asar Sheikh, but in the process, she was also assaulted and sustained injuries on her person. Asar Sheikh managed to escape somehow but, his house was burnt by fire and his mother Parbati Bewa was removed to Shaktinagar hospital in precarious condition and subsequently Parbati Bewa succumbed to her injuries at hospital. ( 7 ) IT appears that in Nakashipara P. S. Case No. 25/2003 the police has submitted chargesheet under section 302 of IPC along with section 25/27 of arms Act and it has already been committed to the Court of Sessions and after transfer from the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Nadia to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Nadia it has been registered as s. C. Case No. 139 of 2003. It appears that in Nakashipara P. S. Case No. 267 2003 the police after investigation has submitted chargesheet under sections 448/304/436/34 of IPC against 16 accused persons. The said case has not yet been committed to the Court of Sessions from the Court of learned SDJM as some of the accused persons are still absconding. This petitioner who is accused in Nakashipara P. S. Case No. 25/03 filed an application to stay the proceeding of SC Case No. 13 (9) of 2003 till the counter case being Nakashipara P. S. Case no. 26/2003 is committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned Additional sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Nadia by the impugned order dated 3. 12. This petitioner who is accused in Nakashipara P. S. Case No. 25/03 filed an application to stay the proceeding of SC Case No. 13 (9) of 2003 till the counter case being Nakashipara P. S. Case no. 26/2003 is committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned Additional sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Nadia by the impugned order dated 3. 12. 2003 rejected the said prayer and hence the instant revisional application. ( 8 ) THE Code of Criminal Procedure is silent relating to trial of case and counter case. In order to remove this grey portion of the Code the Supreme Court in several decisions has observed that it should be replenished by judicial pronouncement. Long back in 1929 a Division Bench of Madras High Court in gori Parthi Krishtamma in re, reported in 1929 MWN 881, observed that, "a case and counter case arising out of the same affair should always, if practicable, be tried by the same Court. " The Supreme Court in AIR 1980 SC 1780 , Kewal krishan vs. Suraj Bhan and Anr. , 1980 Cr. LJ 1271 (SC), has observed that if case and counter case are tried by the different Courts there is a risk of two Courts coming to conflicting findings. In order to obviate such a risk, it is ordinarily desirable that the two cases should be tried separately but by the same Court. ( 9 ) THE Supreme Court in Nathi Lal vs. State of U. P. , reported in 1990 SCC (Cri) 638 and in Sudhir and Ors. vs. State of M. P. , reported in 2001 (2) SCC 688 , has observed that case and counter case should be disposed of by the same court and judgments should be pronounced on same day. The Supreme Court further observed that where one of the counter cases involved an offence triable by Sessions Court but the other did not, the Magistrate could nonetheless commit under section 323 of Cr. PC even the latter case to Sessions Court. ( 10 ) IN Nathi case (supra) the Supreme Court observed that:-"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. PC even the latter case to Sessions Court. ( 10 ) IN Nathi case (supra) the Supreme Court observed that:-"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 that case. 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 case 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". ( 11 ) THE principle of law as has been enunciated by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases makes it clear that in the matter of case and counter cases exclusively triable by Court of Sessions it is desirable that the same Court should try and pronounce judgment in such cases. It is also desirable that if between case and counter case one is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions and the other is not still it is desirable that both the case and counter case should be tried and disposed of by same Court. The Supreme Court made it clear that in such a situation where one of such cases is not exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, the Magistrate exercising power or jurisdiction under section 323 of Cr. PC should commit the other case also to the Court of Sessions for trial by same Judge. In Sudhir's case (supra) it was made further clear that case and counter case should be disposed of by the same Court and the judgment should be pronounced on same day. PC should commit the other case also to the Court of Sessions for trial by same Judge. In Sudhir's case (supra) it was made further clear that case and counter case should be disposed of by the same Court and the judgment should be pronounced on same day. The Supreme Court made it clear that if the trial of one case is concluded earlier the learned Judge should not deliver the judgment until the counter case reaches stage of delivery of judgment. ( 12 ) IN view of the discussions made above concerning legal position in such a matter, I am of opinion that, the learned Judge made no mistake by rejecting the prayer of the petitioner by observing that there is no ground to stay progress of the trial. The learned Judge clearly observed that the judgment should be reserved till the counter case reaches concluding stage. I am of opinion that the learned Judge could have instructed the learned SDJM to commit the counter case i. e. Nakashipara P. S. Case No. 26/03 as expeditiously as possible after exhausting process against absconding accused persons, if any. I am of opinion that the pronouncement of the Supreme Court as indicated above does not prescribe that the trial of the sessions case which has already been committed to the Court of Sessions should be stayed. The learned Judge may proceed with the trial of Sessions Case No. 13 (9) of 2003 arising out of Nakashipara P. S. Case No. 25/03 but he must proceed with such a speed so that before the delivery of judgment the counter case being Nakashipara P. S. Case No. 26/03 after commitment also reaches concluding stage of trial and reaches stage of delivery of judgment and thereafter the learned Judge should deliver the judgment of case and counter case on same day one after another. ( 13 ) THE learned Sessions Judge, Nadia should instruct the learned SDJM, krishnagar Sadar for committing the counter case being Nakashipara P. S. Case no. 26/03 to his Court as expeditiously as possible after observing all formalities and exhausting process so that he can transfer the said counter case to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Nadia. 26/03 to his Court as expeditiously as possible after observing all formalities and exhausting process so that he can transfer the said counter case to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Nadia. Learned SDJM, krishnagar Sadar is directed to commit the counter case being Nakashipara p. S. Case No. 26/03 to the Court of Sessions forthwith after observing all formalities and exhausting process giving necessary direction to police officers to submit execution reports of process at the earliest so that trial of case and counter case can proceed in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd court, Nadia. ( 14 ) THE revisional application is accordingly disposed of in the light of the observations made above in the body of the order. ( 15 ) SEND a copy of this order to the learned District and Sessions Judge, nadia, to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Nadia and to the learned SDJM, Nadia at Krishnagar for information, necessary action and compliance. ( 16 ) URGENT certified copy be given to the parties, if applied for, expeditiously. Revisional application disposed of. .