U. C. MAHESHWARI, J. ( 1 ) CRIMINAL Revision No. 730/2000 is directed against the order dated 5. 5. 2000 passed by the special Court, SC and ST (Prevention of atrocities) Act (for short the 'act') in ST. No. 203/91 by which ST No. 85/92, State; of M. P. v. Jugraj Singh, was directed to be amalgamated with S. T. No. 203/91 by holding that both the session trials were arising out of the same incident and Cr. Rev. No. 730/2000 is directed against the order dated 12. 5. 2000 passed by the aforesaid court in S. T. No. 85/92 by which the application filed by petitioners under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in brief the "code") has been dismissed. The facts giving rise to these petitions are that initially an offence was registered at Police Station Gotegaon and on investigation the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 namely Munnalal and Brijlal were charge-sheeted under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. Subsequent to it, a private complaint was iniitiated against all petitioners regarding the same incident in which the cognisance under the aforesaid section of the Indian Penal Code was taken against them. In view of the provisions of section 210 of the Code, S. T. No. 85/92 was amalgamated with S. T. No. 203/91, pending in the same Court and by order dated 5. 5. 2000 both the cases were directed to be fixed for final arguments on 8. 5. 2000. On 8. 5. 2000, an application under section 311 of the Code was filed for recalling the witnesses who have already been examined in S. T. No. 203/91. During the period, other petitioners were not impleaded as an accused in the trial. In the application it was prayed that by recalling the examined witnesses, opportunity to cross-examine them be given to the petitioners against whom cognizance was taken subsequently in a private complaint. Such application has been by holding that cross-examination of such witnesses are not necessary, hence these revisions are preferred for setting aside both the orders. ( 2 ) IN Criminal Revision No. 730/ 2000, Shri Alok Tapikar, learned Counsel for petitioners has submitted that both the session trials were wrongly amalgamated which is contrary to the prescribed procedure. Such application has been by holding that cross-examination of such witnesses are not necessary, hence these revisions are preferred for setting aside both the orders. ( 2 ) IN Criminal Revision No. 730/ 2000, Shri Alok Tapikar, learned Counsel for petitioners has submitted that both the session trials were wrongly amalgamated which is contrary to the prescribed procedure. He also submitted that the circumstances as mentioned in both the cases are different from each other, thus, the Trial Court has wrongly tagged both the cases and committed grave error in directing that both the cases would be heard simultaneously. He further submitted that the order dated 5. 5. 2000 be set aside and the Trial Court be directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law. ( 3 ) HE also submitted that on taking cognizance in a private complaint and after amalgamating both the trials under the provisions of the Code the petitioner nos. 3 to 12 were entitled to extend an opportunity to defend their case in which right to cross-examine all the examined witnesses is also included. He further submitted that it was the duty of the Court to recall all the witnesses who have already been examined in S. T. No. 203/91 for giving opportunity of cross-examination to the petitioners and accused of S. T. No. 85/92. According to his submission, when witnesses were examined, petitioners No. 3 to 12 were not impleaded as an accused in the charge-sheet of S. T. No. 203/91 and subsequent to it, when cognizance was taken against them then renovo trial ought to have been proceeded but that procedure was not followed. He also referred to some decided and reported cases and prayed for setting aside of both the orders by allowing the application filed under section 311 of the Code with appropriate direction. ( 4 ) THE Counsel for respondent/ state Shri J. K. Jain submitted that both the orders have been passed in conformity with the law and no jurisdictional error has been committed by the Trial court, thus, the orders do not call any interference in these revisions. ( 4 ) THE Counsel for respondent/ state Shri J. K. Jain submitted that both the orders have been passed in conformity with the law and no jurisdictional error has been committed by the Trial court, thus, the orders do not call any interference in these revisions. ( 5 ) FOR considering the aforesaid submissions, ongoings through the record and the impugned orders it appears that both the cases are arising out of one and the same incident while the earlier charge-sheet was filed with police report under section 173 of the Code against only petitioners No. 1 and 2 namely munnalal and Brijlal but on initiating a private complaint, cognizance regarding the same incident was taken against the petitioners No. 3 to 12 including petitioners No. 1 and 2 namely Munnalal and brijlal and in such situation the procedure prescribed under section 210 of the Code is applicable which 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 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. (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. " ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the language of the aforesaid section the case initiated on a police report and the case initiated as complaint case shall be tried together. This provision is enacted by the Legislature to avoid the multiplicity of the litigation and to avoid the different trial in relating to the same incident. ( 7 ) IN view of the aforesaid section when the case at hand is examined then in the facts and circumstances of the case it appears that both the session trials arising out of one and the same incident. So the Trial Court has not committed any error in directing to proceed with the trial in both the sessions trial simultaneously either by amalgamation or by passing direction in other way. So, I do not find any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 5. 5. 2000. Thus, the order is upheld and the Cr. Rev. No. 735/2000 is accordingly dismissed. ( 8 ) SO far order dated 12. 5. 2000 passed in S. T. No. 85/92 is concerned, by which an application under section 311, Criminal Procedure Code has been dismissed by the Trial Court, it is apparent from the record that in S. T. No. 203/ 91 all witnesses were examined in presence of petitioners No. 1 and 2, namely munnalal and Brijlal, the then, who were on the record as an accused and the petitioner Nos. 3 to 12 could not get any opportunity to cross-examine such witnesses in their defence. It is also apparent that petitioner Nos. 3 to 12 were impleaded as accused in the private complaint, in which on taking cognizance they became accused of S. T. No. 85/92, along with petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 namely munnalal and Brijlal and both cases have been amalgamated at subsequent stage. It is also apparent that petitioner Nos. 3 to 12 were impleaded as accused in the private complaint, in which on taking cognizance they became accused of S. T. No. 85/92, along with petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 namely munnalal and Brijlal and both cases have been amalgamated at subsequent stage. ( 9 ) ACCORDING to settled position of criminal law and also as per principle of natural justice, the person should not be unheard and specially in criminal matters, accused should be extended each and every opportunity to defend their case and opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. If such opportunity is cur-rtailed, then certainly a grave prejudice would be caused to their defence. Even otherwise in pending trial if any person impleaded as an accused then after his appearance renovo trial is required as held by the Apex Court in the case of michael Machado and another v. Central bureau of Investigation. ( 10 ) IN view of aforesaid dictum of the Apex Court, one thing is certain that whenever a new person is impleaded as accused in the trial, then he must be given an opportunity to defend his case by recalling the examined witnesses which is one of the step of renovo trial. Even the procedure for conducting the sessions trial under the Code begins from section 227 should have been followed by the Trial Court, but contrary to this, the application filed by petitioner Nos. 3 to 12 under Section 311 of the Code has been dismissed. Thus, Trial Court committed serious infirmity and such order is not sustainable. ( 11 ) THUS, the order dated 12. 5. 2000 under challenge in Cr. Rev. No. 730/2000 is hereby set aside and the application filed by the petitioner Nos. 3 to 12 under section 311 of the Code is allowed. The trial Court is directed to recall the witnesses who have already been examined in S. T. No. 203/91 to give ample opportunity of their cross-examination to petitioner Nos. 3 to 12 and proceed further in accordance with law. ( 12 ) RESULTANTLY, Criminal Revision no. 731/2000 is hereby dismissed while criminal Revision No. 730/2000 is allowed to the extent indicated above. Order accordingly. .