JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/ complainant (hereafter referred to as the complainant) against the judgment dated 24.11.2003, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb whereby the respondents/accused (hereafter referred to as the accused) have been acquitted of a charge under Section 435 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the complainant, admittedly lodged an FIR against the accused for having set on fire his private forest whereby some trees belonging to the complainant were damaged/destroyed. When the complainant felt that the police was not doing anything substantial in the matter, he lodged a complaint against the accused persons based on the aforesaid facts coupled with the allegation that the police, in connivance with the accused, prepared a charge-sheet under Section 285 of the Indian Penal Code and sent the same to the Panchayat for trial. On the basis of preliminary evidence led by the complainant, the accused were summoned and on the basis of pre-charge evidence, a charge under Section 435 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against them. On consideration of the material brought on record, the trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the charge against the accused was not proved, therefore, acquitted them. Hence this appeal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records. 4. It may be pointed out that there is no dispute about the reporting of the occurrence to the police by the complainant and the police having filed a charge-sheet against the accused under Section 285 of the Indian Penal Code before a Panchayat. It is evident from the records that after having come to know about lodging of the FIR, investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the Court below called for a report from the S.H.O. concerned regarding the result of the investigation. On submission of such report, it transpired that the charge-sheet had been submitted by the police to the Panchayat, therefore, records of the case were called for from the Panchayat. On submission of such report, it transpired that the charge-sheet had been submitted by the police to the Panchayat, therefore, records of the case were called for from the Panchayat. On perusal of such records and other material on record, the trial Court vide order dated 29.4.2003 directed that by virtue of the provisions of Section 210(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereafter referred to as the Code), the case instituted on police report as well as the complaint arising out of the same occurrence must be tried together. Therefore, the trial Court withdrew the case pending before the Panchayat to its file and directed the trial to be conducted as per the provisions of Section 210(2) of the Code. Such trial, admittedly, was conducted by the trial Court without notice to the State on whose behalf the charge-sheet was filed against the accused other than accused Amal Kumar and disposed of the case in the absence of the State. Therefore, preliminary question which arises for consideration in the matter is as to whether the impugned acquittal and proceedings taken at the trial in the absence of a notice to the State, can be sustained? 5. There cannot be any dispute about the correctness of the conclusion arrived by the trial Magistrate that in view of the police charge-sheet and the complaint arising out of the same occurrence and based on the similar allegations these should be dealt with under the provisions of Section 210 of the Code. 6. Section 210 of the Code reads as under:— "210. Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence,—(1) When in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as a complaint case), it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject-matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation. (2) If a report is made by the investigating police officer under Section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report. (3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Code/ 7. It is clear on a bare reading of the aforesaid provisions that when a complaint is filed and it appears to the Magistrate during the inquiry or trial of such complaint that the police has also investigated the same offence, the Magistrate has to stay the complaint case and call for a report from the police officer in the matter. In case there is a report by the police, both the complaint and the case arising out of the police report, are required to be tried together. Once the Magistrate decides to try the complaint and the police case together, he has to try them as a case instituted on a police report. 8. Therefore, the trial Magistrate, having rightly decided to proceed in the matter as provided under Section 210 of the Code, was to inquire into and try the complaint case and the case as reported by the police as if both the cases were instituted on a police report. The necessary implication of this legal requirement is that once it is ordered that the police charge-sheet and a private complaint are to be tried together under subsection (2) of Section 210 of the Code, it is obligatory to give notice to the State through Prosecutor to enable the State to prosecute its case. After securing the presence of the parties, the trial Magistrate was to consider the desirability of proceeding against respondent Amal Kumar alias Amarjit as provided under sub-section (3) of Section 210 as he is mentioned as an accused in the complaint but not in the police charge-sheet. 9. After securing the presence of the parties, the trial Magistrate was to consider the desirability of proceeding against respondent Amal Kumar alias Amarjit as provided under sub-section (3) of Section 210 as he is mentioned as an accused in the complaint but not in the police charge-sheet. 9. In the case in hand, the learned trial Magistrate did not give any notice to the Public Prosecutor/the State and tried together and disposed of the complaint and the police charge-sheet in the manner as if it was a private complaint by the complainant and thus, acted contrary to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 210 of the Code. Therefore, the proceedings before the Magistrate taken after 29.4.2004 and the impugned judgment, outcome of such proceedings, being illegal, cannot be sustained. In view of these findings, this Court need not go into the merits of the case. 10. As a result this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside and the proceedings taken by the Magistrate after 29.4.2003 being illegal, are quashed. The complaint and the charge-sheet which had been amalgamated for trial together, are remitted to the trial Court with the direction to proceed with the cases from the stage where they stood immediately after the passing of the order dated 29.4.2003 and to try and dispose of these cases in accordance with law. Needless to say that before proceeding with the matter, the trial Court shall issue notice to the State through the concerned Prosecutor and only thereafter will proceed further from the stage as on 29.4.2003. 11. The present parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 10.11.2004. Appeal allowed.