JUDGMENT : 1. Though this matter has been listed for orders, learned counsel for both parties submit that the case may be heard finally. As, a short question is involved, we are persuaded to hear the matter finally for disposal. 2. This appeal is filed by complainant in Crime No.84/2011 aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 22.07.2014 passed in S.C.No.29/2012 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Doddaballapur, Bangalore Rural District. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge has found accused 1 to 7 not guilty of offences punishable under Sections 143, 504, 326, 427 r/w section of 149 IPC. They have been accordingly acquitted. 3. Facts involved in this case disclose that on 02.06.2011 at about 10.00 p.m. in the night at Chunchegowdanahalli Village accused 1 and 2 - Byregowda S/o Chikkaveerapppa and C.C. Nagaraju S/o Late Chikkaveeranna parked their tractor across the road; one C.M. Venkatesh (CW2) came there in his tractor to proceed to his house; he sounded horn alerting accused 1 and 2 to make way for him; accused No.4 - Srikantha S/o. Byregowda came there to remove the said tractor; thereafter, C.M. Venkatesh moved his tractor; at that time, accused No.1 told his son not to remove the tractor and abused C.M. Venkatesh; he assaulted C.M. Venkatesh with chopper resulting in injuries on the left hand index finger and on thumb finger of C.M. Venkatesh; accused No.1 also assaulted C.M. Venkatesh with club and dashed the tractor belonging to C.M. Venkatesh to the electric pole and caused damage. Father of injured filed a complaint against accused 1 to 7. Allegations of causing damage to the tractor was also made against accused Nos. 3 to 7. 4. Prosecution examined totally 9 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 9. Exs.P.1 to P.9(a) and M.O. Nos.1 to 6 were produced and marked. No witness was examined by the defense and no document was produced and marked by them. 5. The Court below has found that offences alleged and punishable under Sections 143, 504, 326, 427 read with Section 149 of IPC for which accused were tried were not proved inasmuch as evidence of P.Ws.1 to 9 did not support the case of prosecution and the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offences alleged. 6. Appellant herein is Munianjanappa who was the complainant in the present case. 6. Appellant herein is Munianjanappa who was the complainant in the present case. It transpires that on the same day (02.06.2011) at about 9.30 p.m. another complaint was lodged against C.M. Venkatesh S/o. Munianjanappa alleging that when the complainant was standing in front of his house, Venkatesh who was driving the tractor attached with cultivator tried to run him over and at that time, he went aside and escaped; said Venaktesh threatened the complainant that he would kill him by running him over and thus tried to dash against him; when the complainant tried to escape, the tractor was dashed against the electric pole and the electric pole was damaged. 7. This case was registered in Crime No.83/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC. Whereas, complaint filed by father of injured Venkatesh was registered in Crime No.84/2011 against 7 accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 504, 326, 427 read with Section 149 of IPC. 8. Main contention urged by appellant - complainant before this Court is that contrary to the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge in Crl.Misc.No.1473/2011 dated 16.11.2011 and overlooking and ignoring the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.3489/2014 dated 25.06.2014, the Court below has disposed of S.C.No.29/2012 (case out of which present appeal arises) without following the due procedure. It is urged that though this Court had ordered for expunging the evidence already recorded and had issued a direction that separate prosecutor had to be appointed in both the cases and the trial shall be thereafter proceeded, the Court below has disposed of the case based on the evidence already recorded and without appointing separate public prosecutors in both the cases. 9. Learned counsel appearing for respondents/accused 1 to 7 submits that the two cases cannot be characterized as a case and counter-case arising out of single incident. It is his submission that both the cases are distinct and separate and therefore, the learned trial Judge was right and justified in deciding the present case separately. It is his further submission that without impleading accused/respondents herein, complainant - appellant had secured orders in Crl.Misc.No.1473/2011 and as also in Crl.P.No.3489/2014 and therefore, those orders are not binding on respondents. 10. We have given our anxious consideration to the respective contentions. It is his further submission that without impleading accused/respondents herein, complainant - appellant had secured orders in Crl.Misc.No.1473/2011 and as also in Crl.P.No.3489/2014 and therefore, those orders are not binding on respondents. 10. We have given our anxious consideration to the respective contentions. The point that arises for our consideration is "whether the Court below has committed any illegality in passing the judgment of acquittal without treating both the cases as case and counter case and ignoring the direction issued by this Court?' This is a case where at an undisputed point of time vide order dated 16.11.2011, the Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore had directed in Crl.Misc.No.1473/2011 that both the cases arising out of Crime Nos.83/2011 and 84/2011 shall be tried by the same Judge. Therefore, C.C.No.658/2011 pending on the file of the JMFC, Doddaball-apur arising out Crime No.84/2011 was ordered to be transferred and reassigned to the Court of Fast Track Court, Doddaballapur on whose file S.C. No.234/2011 was pending consideration. Even the order dated 25.06.2014 passed by this Court in W.P. No.3489/2014 made it clear that procedure adopted by the Fast Track Court, Doddaballapur in recording evidence in S.C. No.234/2011 was erroneous and the evidence so recorded had to be expunged and the matter be remitted back to commence evidence afresh after appointing a separate public prosecutor to represent the State in S.C.No.234/2011. 11. As already noticed above, Crl.Misc.No. 1473/2011 was disposed of on 16.11.2011. In paragraph 9 of the said order, the Principal Sessions Judge has held that both the cases were filed with regard to the same incident; although there was a gap of 30 minutes between the two incidents, the same would not take away the fact that they formed part of the same incident. The learned Judge has further found that both the cases were in the nature of case and counter-case and hence, they were required to be tried before the same Court. Having recorded such a finding, the learned Principal Sessions Judge persuaded herself to withdraw C.C.No.658/2011 pending on the file of JMFC, Doddaballapur and reassigned the same to the Fast Track Court, Doddaballapur where S.C.No.234/2011 was pending. That being so, the learned Judge of the Fast Track Court, Doddaballapur ought to have followed the due procedure and recorded evidence in both the cases separately and disposed of the two cases treating them as case and counter-case. That being so, the learned Judge of the Fast Track Court, Doddaballapur ought to have followed the due procedure and recorded evidence in both the cases separately and disposed of the two cases treating them as case and counter-case. Indeed, procedure to be followed in such matter is dealt with and explained in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sudhir v. State of M.P. (2001) 2 SCC 688 : ( AIR 2001 SC 826 ). In paragraph 8, the Apex Court has observed as under: "It is a salutary practise, when two criminal cases relate to the same incident, they are tried and disposed of by the same Court by pronouncing judgments on the same day. Such two different versions of the same incident resulting in two criminal cases are compendiously called "case and counter-case" by some High Courts and "Cross- cases" by some other High Courts. Way back in the nineteen hundred and twenties a Division Bench of the Madras High Court (Waller and Cornish, JJ.) made a suggestion (Goriparthi Krishtamma, "a case and counter-case arising out of the same affair should always, if practicable, be tried by the same Court; and each party would represent themselves as having been the innocent victims of the aggression of the other". In paragraph 11, the Apex Court has referred to the judgment in Nathi Lal v. State of U.P. 1990 (Supp) SCC 145 wherein the procedure to be followed in such a situation has been laid down. Practical reasons for adopting such procedure with reference to cross-cases to be tried by the same Court has been summarized in paragraph No.10 as under: "(1) It staves off the danger of an accused being convicted before his whole case is before the Court (2) It deters conflicting judgments being delivered upon similar facts (3) In reality the case and the counter-case are, to all intents and purposes, different or conflicting versions of one incident" 12. It is thus clear that learned trial Court ought to have followed the procedure which is required to be followed in cases where case and counter-case are tried. Indeed, there is an additional factor which the court has ignored i.e., the direction issued by this Court on 25.06.2014 in Crl.P.No.3489/2014. It is thus clear that learned trial Court ought to have followed the procedure which is required to be followed in cases where case and counter-case are tried. Indeed, there is an additional factor which the court has ignored i.e., the direction issued by this Court on 25.06.2014 in Crl.P.No.3489/2014. The State which was represented by Doddabelemangala Police was heard in the matter and a direction was issued to the Fast Track Court, Doddaballapur to record evidence afresh in S.C.No.234/2011 by expunging the evidence already recorded. The matter was remitted back to commence evidence afresh after appointing separate public prosecutor to represent the State in S.C.No.234/2011. It is brought to our notice by the learned counsel for both sides that evidence was recorded in S.C.No.29/2012 and not in S.C.No.234/2011. 13. Be that as it may, fact remains that this Court has found fault with the procedure adopted in recording the evidence without appointing separate public prosecutors in the two cases. Therefore, keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and the direction issued by this Court in Crl.P.No.3489/2014, it is inevitable to hold that the procedure followed by the Court below is erroneous and the judgment and order passed by the Court below suffers from patent illegality requiring interference by this Court. 14. We are unable to accept the contention urged by learned counsel for respondents - accused that no prejudice has been caused to the complainant - appellant. We cannot also accept this contention that neither before the learned Principal Sessions Judge in Crl.Misc.No.1473/2011 nor before this Court in Crl.P.No.3489/2014 present respondents were made parties, hence, those orders cannot affect their rights. The State was a party in the previous proceeding. Accused - respondents herein have not made any grievance with regard to those orders which were passed way back on 16.11.2011 in Crl.Misc.No.1473/2011 and on 25.06.2014 in Crl.P.No.3489/2014. The legality and correctness of those orders are also not challenged before this Court. 15. The State was a party in the previous proceeding. Accused - respondents herein have not made any grievance with regard to those orders which were passed way back on 16.11.2011 in Crl.Misc.No.1473/2011 and on 25.06.2014 in Crl.P.No.3489/2014. The legality and correctness of those orders are also not challenged before this Court. 15. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that ends of justice require that the judgment and order passed by the Court below be set aside and the matter be remitted for fresh consideration to the IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Doddaballapur to be tried and disposed of in accordance with law keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sudhir v. State of M.P., (2001) 2 SCC 688 : ( AIR 2001 SC 826 ) and also the direction issued by this Court in Crl.P.No.3489/2014, after recording evidence afresh and ignoring the evidence already on record in S.C.No.29/2012. Ordered accordingly.