P. N. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of criminal Procedure Code preferred by the petitioners is directed against the order dated 6. 2. 02 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st court, Siliguri in Criminal Revision No. 15 of 2000 thereby affirming the order dated 31. 8. 2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Siliguri issuing process against the petitioners under Sections 325/34 of the Indian penal Code (in short IPC) and also praying for quashing the criminal proceeding being complaint case No. C. R. 98 of 2000 now pending before the learned judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Siliguri. ( 2 ) LEARNED Advocates for the petitioners contended that on 26th March, 2000 at about 9 p. m. there was tension concerning a cricket match between india and Pakistan which was a day and night match. The police picked up two persons to stop the tension and brought them to police station. Thereafter, some persons of the locality of Ward No. 7 of Siligun Municipality went to the office of the A. P. D. R. , Siliguri and reported to them about taking away of two persons to police station by police and thereafter men A. P. D. R. came at Siliguri Police Station and attacked the chamber of Officer-in-Charge and damaged properties of that room and also caused severe damage to the vehicles lying at thana compound. In order to disperse the said unlawful assembly and violent mob the police had to use force to drive them out of police station. Due to the attack of the unruly mob at least 10 police persons were injured and over that matter the police started a suo moto case being siliguri P. S. Case No. 132 dated 27. 3. 2000 under Sections 147/148/149/4471 506/353/186/427/332/536 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 of the P. D. P. R Act and after completing investigation charge sheet has also been submitted against 10 accused persons out of which the opposite party No. 2, who is complainant of Cr. R. Case No. 98 of 2000 is an accused. The other injured person Ashim Chakraborty is also an accused in the said police case. Relating to incident dated 26. 3. 2000 opposite party No. 2 as complainant lodged the complaint in the Court of learned SDJM on 12. 4. R. Case No. 98 of 2000 is an accused. The other injured person Ashim Chakraborty is also an accused in the said police case. Relating to incident dated 26. 3. 2000 opposite party No. 2 as complainant lodged the complaint in the Court of learned SDJM on 12. 4. 2000 against some of the police persons which was registered as case No. C. R. 98 of 2000 under Sections 147/148/149/323/341 /324/379/120b/114/115/34 of Indian penal Code. After taking cognizance by order dated 12. 4. 2000 learned SDJM, siliguri transferred the case to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st court, Siliguri. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate after taking statement of witnesses on oath under Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code referred the matter to the S. D. O. , Siliguri for investigation under Section 202 (1) of criminal Procedure Code to ascertain whether there is sufficient ground to proceed further before issuing process. The learned Magistrate received the enquiry report on 29. 8. 2000 and thereafter by order dated 31. 8. 2000 issued process against these two petitioners under Sections 325/34 of Indian Penal code. Challenging the order of the learned Magistrate for issuing process without obtaining the sanction in view of provisions of Section 132 of Criminal procedure Code and also under Section 197 Criminal Procedure Code the petitioners preferred a criminal revision in the Court of the learned Sessions judge at Darjeeling and it was transferred to the Court of the learned Additional sessions Judge, 1st Court, Siliguri for disposal. Learned Additional Sessions judge by order dated 6. 2. 02 rejected the revision and affirmed the order of the learned Magistrate and being and aggrieved by dissatisfied with the said order petitioners have preferred the instant revision. ( 3 ) THEY further contended that the learned Magistrate did not consider the investigation report under Section 202 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code properly and action of the learned Magistrate falling back to pre-enquiry stage is bad in law. Learned Magistrate did not consider that in the investigation report submitted by the S. D. O. under Section 202 (1) of Criminal Procedure code it was mentioned that the exact cause of injury to A. P. D. R. persons could not be ascertained. Learned Magistrate did not consider that in the investigation report submitted by the S. D. O. under Section 202 (1) of Criminal Procedure code it was mentioned that the exact cause of injury to A. P. D. R. persons could not be ascertained. Besides that, the learned Magistrate did not consider the provisions of Sections 129/130/131/132 of Criminal Procedure Code and failed to realise that in order to disperse an unlawful assembly the Officer-in charge of a police station can use civil force and in the discharge of such official duty to use civil force while dispersing the unlawful assembly any person of such unlawful assembly becomes injured no prosecution can be lodged against the police officers in view of provisions of Section 132 of the criminal Procedure Code. Learned Magistrate also did not consider that Section 132 is more wider than provisions of Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code and accordingly taking of cognizance and issuing process without sanction of the State Government was illegal and bad in law and that illegality cannot be cured in view of Section 465 of Criminal Procedure Code. ( 4 ) THEY further contended that the FIR lodged by the police which is annexure - C lying at page 26 is very important and it shows that the FIR was lodged by Inspector-in-Charge, Siliguri P. S. Prodyot Chandra Das on the very same date i. e. on 26. 3. 2000 at 11. 15 p. m. where the opposite party No. 2 lodged the complaint on 12. 4. 2000, i. e. 17 days after the incident. This delay in lodging the complaint clearly indicates that the complaint was mala fide and it was filed when the men of A. R D. R. came to know that a specific police case has been started against them. The learned Magistrate did not go through the report of investigation submitted before him under Section 202 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code and the report revealed that it could not be ascertained as to how A. R D. R. persons were injured. if members of unlawful assembly attack police station and damage articles of the room of officer-in-Charge and other articles of police compound including damage to the vehicles, the police under the provisions of Sections 129 to 131 of Criminal procedure Code has right to use force to disperse such unlawful assembly. if members of unlawful assembly attack police station and damage articles of the room of officer-in-Charge and other articles of police compound including damage to the vehicles, the police under the provisions of Sections 129 to 131 of Criminal procedure Code has right to use force to disperse such unlawful assembly. For this reason protection against prosecution for such acts done has been provided under Section 132 of Criminal Procedure Code and it shows that the action by police in such a situation could not be treated as offence. Finding of the learned Magistrate and the order of issuing process against the petitioners without obtaining sanction from the Government is perverse and bad in law. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also erred in law and failed to realise the legal principles. The orders of the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge should be vacated and the criminal proceeding instituted against these petitioners should be quashed as taking of cognizance against them was bad in law and void ab initio. ( 5 ) LEARNED Advocate for the opposite party No. 2 contended that A. P. D. R. is engaged for enforcing democratic rights of the people. One person peter Yadav by name was picked up by police and he was confined to police station and concerning that matter there was a writ petition in the High Court and the High Court directed enquiry by C. B. I. The complainant and one ashim Chakraborty was mercilessly assaulted by the police personnel near bata Shoe shop which was far away from police station and due to such assault hand of Ashim Chakraborty was fractured and both of them were confined to the hospital due to their injuries. After release from hospital the complaint was filed and naturally cause of delay in lodging complaint was properly explained. The learned Magistrate made no mistake by issuing process as the police assaulted the complainant and Ashim Chakraborty intentionally after the A. P. D. R. persons left the police station and there was no unlawful assembly causing damage to public property at police station when these two persons were assaulted by the present petitioners. The learned Magistrate made no mistake by issuing process as the police assaulted the complainant and Ashim Chakraborty intentionally after the A. P. D. R. persons left the police station and there was no unlawful assembly causing damage to public property at police station when these two persons were assaulted by the present petitioners. No question of sanction either under Section 132 or Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code was necessary in this case as after disperse of the mob and when the threat was already over, the petitioners being police officers intentionally assaulted the complainant and Ashim Chakraborty and that action was not in the discharge of their official duty. The order of the learned Magistrate as well as the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge were correct and proper and the said two orders require no interference. It is admitted that police started a suo moto case on the same day and filed charge sheet. This case also should be sent to the same Court so that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court both the cases can be tried in same Court. The revisional application having no merit should be dismissed. ( 6 ) AFTER carefully considering the submissions made by the learned advocates of the parties and going through the revisional application and annexures and considering the provisions of Sections 129/130/131/132/197/ 200/202/204 of Criminal Procedure Code. I am unable to accept the arguments canvassed before me on behalf of the petitioners. Section 190 of Criminal procedure Code prescribes how cognizance can be taken and cognizance of any offence may be taken (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a police report of such facts; (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge that such offence has been committed. The Matter depends how the learned Magistrate proceeds after receiving a complaint. if after receiving a complaint and perusing the same the Magistrate thinks that the complaint contains such materials which require investigation by police he may send the complaint to the police station concerned for investigation under Section 156 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code and in such a case he need not take cognizance and need not examine the complainant and his witnesses. if in such a case the police after investigation submits report in final form in the manner of charge sheet the Magistrate may take cognizance. if after perusing complaint, the Magistrate thinks that the case is not fit for sending to police for investigation the Magistrate may take cognizance and thereafter he can proceed with provisions of Section 200 of Criminal Procedure code regarding examination of complainant and his witnesses and if after such examination the Magistrate thinks that there is sufficient ground for proceeding further he may issue process. if after examination of complainant and his witnesses the Magistrate thinks that investigation is required he may postpone issue of process and can direct investigation under Section 202 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate after receiving the report of investigation under Section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code and considering the statement of witnesses is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding further he may issue process. A very wide discretion has been given in the matter of issue of process which is to be used with caution. if after examination of complainant and his witnesses and perusing the report of investigation under Section 202 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code the magistrate forms opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding he may issue process and that order cannot be disturbed in revision if there were prima facie materials disclosing commission of offence sufficient for issuing process and in such a situation the High Court and even the Supreme Court would be very slow to disturb the order of the Magistrate. ( 7 ) IN the instant case it has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that the investigation report under Section 202 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code did not reveal how the A. P. D. R. persons were injured but the learned magistrate ignoring such report went back to the pre-enquiry stage and issued process which is nullity and illegality and not curable under the provisions of Section 465 of Criminal Procedure Code. After perusing the enquiry report under Section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code which is annexure B of the revisional application I am of opinion that the arguments made by the learned Advocates for the petitioners are unfounded and baseless. After perusing the enquiry report under Section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code which is annexure B of the revisional application I am of opinion that the arguments made by the learned Advocates for the petitioners are unfounded and baseless. it is well known that a report or evidence should be considered as a whole and the last line of the report cannot be regarded as finding of the report. The totality of the report and the entire substance of the report should be the basis of formation of opinion by the learned Magistrate. The enquiry report reveals that on 26. 3. 2000 at about 8 p. m. Md. Fakira and others were watching a cricket match between India and Pakistan on television at road side and a police party arrived there and asked Md. Fakira to go to the police station at night otherwise he would face dire consequences. Md. Fakira and others then went to A. P. D. R. office and men of A. P. D. R. went to thana and entered inside the chamber of Inspector-in-Charge. The report reveals that the men of A. P. D. R. used filthy words and used force and damaged some properties of the room of inspector-in-Charge and also damaged the vehicles which were lying on the thana compound. In order to disperse them and chase them away the police used force and thereafter the A. P. D. R. men left the thana premises. The report clearly reveals that the police officers did not stop there and chased them upto bata shop where petitioner No. 2 Pinaki Majumder kicked the complainant bibek Sarkar into drain and insisted the petitioner No. 1, another police officer to assault Ashim Chakraborty and insisted the petitioner No. 1 to broke the hand of Ashim Chakraborty. From the report it appears that due to the attack by A. P. D. R. men some police personnel were injured and they were treated in hospital and due to the assault by police officers, that is, the petitioners the complainant Bibek Sarkar and Ashim Chakraborty were also admitted in hospital and Bibek Sarkar were released from hospital on 29. 3. 2000 and ashim Chakraborty on 3. 4. 2000. 3. 2000 and ashim Chakraborty on 3. 4. 2000. The officer who conducted the enquiry examined witnesses from both sides, i. e. both from police and A. P. D. R. and statement of the witnesses examined by him from both sides reveal that eight police officers were injured and two A. P. D. R. persons namely bibek Sarkar and Ashim Chakraborty were injured. It appears from the statement of the witnesses that Pinaki Majumder, O. C. , kicked Bibek Sarkar into drain and insisted M. L. Lodh, S. I. of Police to assault Ashim Chakraborty and Sri Lodh twisted the left hand of Ashim Chakraborty and caused fracture and instead of stopping there he pressed by his boot which resulted into senseless of Sri Ashim Chakraborty. Sri Pinaki Majumder and Sri. M. L. Lodh caused such injury or assault to Bibek Sarkar and Ashim Chakraborty on road near BATA shop. The report clearly reveals that there was no threat then and the alleged mob or unlawful assembly already dispersed earlier and left the thana premises. If in spite of such evidence the officer concerned in the last line of the report mentioned that the exact cause of injury to a. P. D. R. persons could not be ascertained, it can only be concluded that the officer failed to perform the duty and responsibility placed on him. However, it is clear that last line of the report has other indications which i like to discuss later on. ( 8 ) THE Magistrate while applying judicial mind cannot confine himself only to the last line of the report which is wholly contrary to the report if it is read and construed as a whole. Any prudent person after reading the report would definitely form the opinion that after the A. P. D. R. men left the thana premises and threat was already over and there was no more unlawful assembly, these two petitioners who are the police officers coming to road near Bata shop assaulted Bibek Sarkar and Ashim Chakraborty and M. L. Lodh caused fracture on left hand of Ashim Chakraborty by twisting his hand and pressing by boot and Pinaki Majumdar kicked the complainant in drain. The report if it is read on the whole and facts can be extracted from it, will definitely reveal that the learned Magistrate rightly acted by issuing process. The report if it is read on the whole and facts can be extracted from it, will definitely reveal that the learned Magistrate rightly acted by issuing process. The learned Magistrate did not issue process not only basing reliance on this report but also on consideration of statement of witnesses and the proper course of issuing process under Section 204 of criminal Procedure Code is to form opinion by the learned Magistrate on the basis of statement of complainant and his witnesses examined under section. 200 of Criminal Procedure Code and after perusing the report of investigation submitted before him under Section 202 (1) of Criminal Procedure code. After fully complying with provisions of Sections 200, 202 (1) and 204 of Criminal Procedure Code learned Magistrate rightly formed the opinion regarding issue of process against these two petitioners as from statement of witnesses and investigation report prima facie elements of offence under section 325/34 of Indian Penal Code transpired against the petitioners justifying issue of process against them under aforesaid sections. ( 9 ) MOREOVER, last line of the investigation report clearly indicates about injury of other A. P. D. R. persons as it was the case of complainant that besides him and Ashim Chakraborty several other A. P. D. R. persons were injured. How the other A. P. D. R. persons were injured did not transpire from the report. But, the report clearly establishes that injury of Bibek Sarkar and Ashim Chakraborty were caused by these two petitioners. The last line of the report is in respect of injuries of other A. P. D. R. persons which was not ascertained, though in complaint it was mentioned that other persons were injured. ( 10 ) I intend to quote scope of application of Section 132 from Code of Criminal Procedure by Sarkar, 6th Edition at page 258. The discussion in the annotated portion based on various decisions reveal that no sanction is necessary when the police officer is not an Officer-in-charge of a police station" as his action is illegal. ( 10 ) I intend to quote scope of application of Section 132 from Code of Criminal Procedure by Sarkar, 6th Edition at page 258. The discussion in the annotated portion based on various decisions reveal that no sanction is necessary when the police officer is not an Officer-in-charge of a police station" as his action is illegal. in order to obtain benefit of Section 132 the accused has to show : (i) That there was an unlawful assembly; (ii) that the unlawful assembly was commanded to disperse; (iii) That either the assembly did not disperse on command, or if no command had been given, its conduct had shown a determination not to disperse; and (iv) That in the circumstances he had used force against the assembly. it is also clear that there must be a reasonable connection between the act complained of and the duty of the public servant. it is also well settled that whether sanction is necessary or not is a mixed question of law and fact. From the report under Section 202 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code in the instant case it is clear that when police used force men of A. P. D. R. already left thana premises and naturally the said unlawful assembly dispersed and there was no more threat relating to loss and destruction of public property. Prima facie it appears that these two police officers who are petitioners here did not stop there but, chased the A. P. D. R. men and Pinaki Majumder assaulted Bibek Sarkar and kicked him into drain and insisted M. L. Lodh to broke the hand of Ashim Chakraborty and thereafter M. L. Lodh twisted the left hand of Ashim Chakraborty and caused fracture and pressed him with boots making him senseless. ( 11 ) THE above discussion from materials on record considering facts and circumstances would reveal that in this case at this stage there was no need of sanction under Section 132 of Criminal Procedure Code. Relating to sanction under Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code. I like to refer few decisions wherein it was held that sanction to prosecute is not necessary in respect of the act done by the public servant. Relating to sanction under Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code. I like to refer few decisions wherein it was held that sanction to prosecute is not necessary in respect of the act done by the public servant. in Budhi Prakash Yadav v. K. C. Sharma, reported in 1981 Cr LJ 993 there was allegation against deputy Commissioner and District Superintendent of Police that they assaulted some Advocates when the Advocates caught a Revenue Officer red-handed while taking bribe. It was held that alleged acts of the public servant had no nexus with performance of official duties and no sanction was necessary. ( 12 ) IN Lakshmana Kunjhan v. C. R. Solochana, reported in 1978 Cr lj 522 the complainant was a lady who made allegation against the superintendent of Police and others regarding torture on her in police station and even they attempted to strip off her clothes. It was held that sanction was not necessary. ( 13 ) IN Abani Ch. Biswal v. State of Orissa, reported in 1988 Cr LJ 1038 a police officer hurled abusive languages to the complainant while he was in police lock up. It was held that action of the police officer cannot be said to have been committed in course of discharge of official duty and protection under Section 197 was not available. ( 14 ) IN State of Maharashtra v. Atma Ram, reported in AIR 1966 SC 1786 there was allegation against the police officer of beating and confinement. The Supreme Court held that acts of beating and confinement done by the police officer has no connection between such acts and duty imposed on police officer and police officer was not entitled to protection. ( 15 ) IN Prabhakar V. Sinari v. Shanker Anant Verlkar, reported in AIR 1969 SC 686 there was threatened encroachment upon complainant's land by hawkers. The complainant lodged a complaint to police and Deputy superintendent of Police appeared at the spot in civilian dress. This Deputy superintendent of Police threatening the complainant that he would arrest him if he interfered with the hawkers and asking the hawkers to enter upon the land of the complainant. The Deputy Superintendent of Police also threatened the complainant that he would be slapped. There was prosecution of the Deputy Superintendent of Police on various charges. It was held by the Supreme Court that no sanction was required in the instant matter. The Deputy Superintendent of Police also threatened the complainant that he would be slapped. There was prosecution of the Deputy Superintendent of Police on various charges. It was held by the Supreme Court that no sanction was required in the instant matter. ( 16 ) IN P. K. Pradhan v. State of Sikkim represented by the CBI, reported in 2001 C Cr LR (SC) 545 the Supreme Court held :"thus, from a conspectus of the aforesaid decisions, it will be clear that for claiming protection under Section 197 of the Code, it has to be shown by the accused that there is reasonable connection between the act complained of and the discharge of official duty. An official act can be performed in the discharge of official duty as well as in dereliction of it. For invoking protection under Section 197 of the Code, the acts of the accused complained of must be such that the same cannot be separated from the discharge of official duty, but if there was no reasonable connection between them and the performance of those duties, the official status furnishes only the occasion or opportunity for the acts, then no sanction would be required. if the case as put forward by the prosecution fails or the defence establishes that the act purported to be done is in discharge of duty, the proceedings will have to be dropped. it is well settled that question of sanction under Section 197 of the Code can be raised any time after the cognizance; may be immediately after cognizance or framing of charge or even at the time of conclusion of trial and after conviction as well. . But there may be certain cases where it may not be possible to decide the question effectively without giving opportunity to the defence to establish that what he did was discharge of official duty. In order to come to the conclusion whether claim of the accused that the act that he did was in course of the performance of his duty was a reasonable one and neither pretended nor fanciful, can be examined during the course of trial by giving opportunity to the defence to establish it. In such an eventuality, the question of sanction should be left open to be decided in the main judgment which may be delivered upon conclusion of the trial". In such an eventuality, the question of sanction should be left open to be decided in the main judgment which may be delivered upon conclusion of the trial". ( 17 ) IN the instant case from the report under Section 202 (1) it did not transpire whether there was any command to the alleged unlawful assembly to disperse. it would be also a consideration of fact if there was no command whether the members of unlawful assembly by their conduct had shown a determination not to disperse and not to leave the than a premises. On the other hand, the report clearly reveals that though the A, p. D. R. men caused some damage in the chamber of Inspector-in-Charge of Siliguri P. S. and to the vehicles lying at thana compound they left thana premises and there was no more existence of unlawful assembly within the thana compound and the threat was already over. Men of A. P. D. R. might have assaulted some police personnel causing injuries to eight police personnel for which the said A. P. D. R. . men were liable to face a criminal prosecution and already Siliguri P. S. Case No. 132 dated 26. 3. 2000 was started against them. After the A. P. D. R. men left the thana premises, these police officers who are the petitioners here, had no connection with their official duty or dispersing of unlawful assembly by going to Bata shop to assault the complainant Bibek Sarkar and Ashim Chakraborty. Accordingly, it is a question of fact which can be decided at the time of trial whether sanction was at all necessary. ( 18 ) THE principles of law discussed above make it clear that the offence alleged to have been committed must have some connection with the discharge of official duty and it must be related in some manner with the discharge of official duty. Prima facie it does not appear that the. petitioners action in assaulting the complainant and Ashim Chakraborty had any reasonable connection between the act complained of by the opposite party complainant in complaint and the official duty of the accused petitioners in using force for dispersal of unlawful assembly or their official duty in connection with the said act. Prima facie it does not appear that the. petitioners action in assaulting the complainant and Ashim Chakraborty had any reasonable connection between the act complained of by the opposite party complainant in complaint and the official duty of the accused petitioners in using force for dispersal of unlawful assembly or their official duty in connection with the said act. in such type of cases the complainant must be given opportunity to establish his case by evidence and opportunity should also be given to the accused petitioners to establish that they acted in the discharge of official duty or in the discharge of the command in dispersing unlawful assembly. The question whether the petitioners acted in the course of performance of duties or acted according to the command of dispersing unlawful assembly or, whether the defence taken by them is pretended or fanciful can only be ascertained during the course of trial on the basis of oral and documentary evidence. In my view in this case taking of cognizance by the learned Magistrate was proper. At this stage the petitioners are not entitled to protection under Section 132 of the Criminal Procedure Code and also under Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code. The question of sanction cannot be considered at this stage and question of sanction should be left open to be decided in the main judgment which may be delivered by the learned Court below after conclusion of trial. ( 19 ) IT transpires that over the incident the police has already started a case and submitted charge sheet. Relating to same incident of same day on the basis of complaint, process was issued against these two petitioners and the complaint case is pending. In view of the principles of law as enunciated by the Supreme Court in several decisions both the police case and the complaint case should be tried by the same Court. ( 20 ) THE Supreme Court in AIR 1980 SC 1780 , Kewal Krishna v. Suraj bhan and Anr. , has observed that if case and counter case are tried by 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. , has observed that if case and counter case are tried by 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. ( 21 ) THE Supreme Court in Nathi Lal v. State of U. P. , reported in 1990 scc (Cr) 638 and Sudhir and Ors. v. State of M. P. , reported in (2001)2 SCC 688 : 2001 C Cr LR (SC) 241 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 the code even the latter case to Sessions Court. In Nathi Lai's 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 doth the judgments must be pronounced by the same learned Judge one after the other". ( 22 ) IN view of the discussion made above concerning legal principles in the instant matter, the position is very clear that order of the learned judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Siliguri dated 31. 8. But doth the judgments must be pronounced by the same learned Judge one after the other". ( 22 ) IN view of the discussion made above concerning legal principles in the instant matter, the position is very clear that order of the learned judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Siliguri dated 31. 8. 2000 by issuing process against these two petitioners and the order of the learned Additional Sessions judge, 1st Court, Siliguri dismissing the Criminal Revision No. 15 of 2000 being correct, proper and legal require no interference. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court regarding the case and counter case as discussed above both the Siliguri P. S. Case No. 132 dated 26. 3. 2000 and the complaint case being C. R. No. 98 of 2000 now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Siliguri should be tried in same Court. At this stage it is not clear to this Court whether in the Siliguri P. S. Case. No. 132 dated 26. 3. 2000 charge sheet has been submitted showing any offence triable by Court of Sessions. If the charge sheet is not concerning offence triable by Court of Sessions both the said cases should be tried in the Court of the same Magistrate. But if any Sessions triable offence is there in the Siliguri P. S. Case No. 132 dated 26. 3. 2000 the complaint case filed by present O. P. Bibek Sarkar being C. R. Case No. 98/2000 should also be committed to the Court of Sessions under Section 323 of criminal Procedure Code for trial in same Court. The learned Sessions judge, Darjeeling is directed to look into the matter and to take steps for transfer of both the case in same Court and if both the cases are trial by Court of Magistrate he shall pass necessary order transferring both the case to same Court and if one of the cases is triable by Court of Sessions he should instruct the learned SDJM to commit the case to Court of Sessions and also instruct the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Siliguri to commit the complaint case being C. R. Case No. 98/2000 to the Court of Sessions so that both the cases are tried in same Court. ( 23 ) THE revisional application having no merit accordingly fails and is disposed of in the light of the observations made above in the both of the order. ( 24 ) IT is made clear that whatever observations have been made by this Court in the instant matter should be treated as observations for the purpose of this revisional application only and, this Court has not discussed anything touching merit of both main cases and the learned Courts below would arrive at their own decision on the basis of evidence and materials on record without being influenced in any way by observations of this Court made in this revisiona! application. ( 25 ) ALL interim orders passed earlier stand vacated. ( 26 ) SEND a copy of this order to the learned District and Sessions Judge, darjeeling, to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Siliguri, to the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri and to the learned judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Siliguri for information and compliance. ( 27 ) AS it is a matter of 2000 the learned trial Court who would try these two cases is directed to expedite the trial of the cases.