JUDGMENT/ORDER DR.H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY, J. - Both these appeals have arisen out of a common judgment dtd. 27/11/2019 passed by the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Haveri (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'the Sessions Judge's Court') in S.C. No.35/2012 and S.C. No.38/2012. 2. Learned counsels from both side are physically present. Learned counsels from both side including the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State make a joint submission that admittedly, both the sessions cases have arisen from out of a case and a counter-case, though both the cases were shown to have been tried separately, however, it appears that the learned Sessions Judge has heard the arguments together and has passed the common judgment which is not in accordance with the judgment of Full Bench of this Court reported in State of Karnataka, by Circle Inspector of Police -vs- Hosakeri Ningappa and another, reported in ILR 2012 KAR 509. With this, both side submit that the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and the matter requires to be remanded to the Sessions Judge's Court with a direction to hear the final arguments afresh and dispose of both the cases on the line of guidelines in the above said Full Bench judgment of this Court. 3. The only point that arises for our consideration is, Whether the impugned judgment ought to have been passed under two separate judgments as such, they deserve to be set aside and matter requires to be remanded? 4. The allegation of the prosecution in S.C.No.35/2012 which has arisen out of Crime No.163/2009 of Shiggaon Police Station is that on 29/8/2009, at about 10.00 a.m., all the accused, in furtherance of their common object, formed an unlawful assembly and entered into the land bearing Survey Number 62/2A of Shishuvinahal Village with an intention to destroy the crop grown there by C.W.1 and his brother. An altercation took place between C.W.1-complainant, his brother and the accused in which the accused making use of the deadly weapons inflicted multiple injuries upon the persons who restrained them from entering into their land and thus have committed the offences punishable under Ss. 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 read with Sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ' IPC '). 5. 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 read with Sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ' IPC '). 5. The summary of the prosecution case in S.C.No.38/2012, which has arisen from Crime No.164/2009 of the very same police station is that on the very same day i.e. 29/8/2009, at about 9.00 a.m., when C.W.4 to C.W.8 were said to have been reaping crop grown in the land of one Umesh Mallanagouda Marigoudar, all the accused, in furtherance of their common object, forming an unlawful assembly committed criminal trespass into the said land and committed rioting with deadly weapons like stone, handle of axe, iron rod and iron pipe and assaulted C.W.1, C.W.2 and C.W.4 and also abused them in filthy language, threatened them to their life inflicted injuries upon them and thereby have committed the offences punishable under Ss. 143, 147, 148, 324, 326, 504, 506 read with Sec. 149 of IPC. 6. A perusal of the trial court records would go to show that the charges were framed separately in both the cases, the evidence were recorded by engaging separate prosecutors in both the cases, exhibits were marked separately and so also the material objects. However, even after observing that both the complaints lodged by each side was a complaint and counter complaint as such it was a case and a counter case, the Sessions Judge's Court proceeded to pass a common judgment which is impugned in these two appeals. Being aggrieved by the said common judgment, which was a judgment of conviction, convicting the accused in both the criminal cases for some of the offences, those accused have preferred these two appeals. 7. A perusal of the impugned judgment would go to show that in the very first paragraph of the judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has observed that S.C. No.35/2012 and S.C. No.38/2012 are the case and the counter-case, however, he proceeded to observe that they have to be decided simultaneously to find who is the aggressor and hence, both the Sessions Cases were clubbed together in S.C. No.35/2012 for the purpose of judgment. 8. A Full Bench of this Court in the Hosakeri Ningappa's case (supra), has extensively dealt with the procedure to be followed in conducting the trial and pronouncing the judgment in criminal cases involving a case and a counter case. 8. A Full Bench of this Court in the Hosakeri Ningappa's case (supra), has extensively dealt with the procedure to be followed in conducting the trial and pronouncing the judgment in criminal cases involving a case and a counter case. After an elaborate discussion, and relying on the discussion on the several aspects of the law, the Full Bench has summarised the procedure to be adopted in a case and a counter case, in paragraph 16 of its order, which is reproduced herein below: "16. To sum up, the procedure to be adopted in case and counter case is that the investigation should be conducted by the same Investigating Officer and the prosecution should be conducted by two different Public Prosecutors. The trial should be conducted by the same Court. After recording the evidence and after hearing the arguments, the judgment should be reserved in one case and thereafter the evidence should be recorded and the arguments should be heard in the other case. It is needless to observe that the argument in both the matters shall be heard by the same Learned Judge. The judgments should be pronounced by the same Judge simultaneously i.e., one after the other." A reading of the above procedure laid down would clearly go to show that the case and the counter case has to be investigated by the same Investigating Officer, however, the prosecution should be conducted by the two Public Prosecutors. 9. In the instant case, the prosecution has been conducted by two different Public Prosecutors as is evidenced in the trial court records - one prosecutor from the place called Haveri in one case and another prosecutor from another place called Dharwad have conducted the prosecution separately in two different cases. Further, the trial as required under the above referred order was conducted by the same Court, the witnesses were examined separately, and documents were marked with separate exhibit numbers in two different series. 10. The Full Bench of this Court in Hosakeri Ningappa's case (supra) in, paragraph 18 of its judgment was pleased to observe as below: "18. Further, the trial as required under the above referred order was conducted by the same Court, the witnesses were examined separately, and documents were marked with separate exhibit numbers in two different series. 10. The Full Bench of this Court in Hosakeri Ningappa's case (supra) in, paragraph 18 of its judgment was pleased to observe as below: "18. In view of the foregoing reasons, we answer the points referred to us as under: (a) If the case and counter case are not tried simultaneously as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Nathi Lal v. State of U.P (Supra ) and in the case of Sudhir and others v. State of M.P (Supra ) the proceedings ipso facto do not get vitiated. But, where the irregular procedure adopted by the Trial Court has caused prejudice to the accused and has occasioned failure of justice, the proceeding and the trial vitiates. Otherwise, the proceedings are protected under Sec. 465 of the Code. (b) The evidence recorded in one case cannot be looked into in the other case. The Trial Judge can only rely upon the evidence recorded in that particular case and the evidence recorded in the cross case cannot be looked into. Each case must be decided on the basis of the evidence which has been placed on record in that particular case. However, if the evidence recorded in one case is brought on record in accordance with procedure known to law in the other case, then, such evidence which is legally brought on record can be looked into. Otherwise, the evidence recorded in one case cannot be looked into in the other case. (c) If the Trial Court disposes of the case and counter case on different dates acquitting the accused therein and no appeal is preferred in one of the cases and the appeal is preferred in the case decided later, the proceedings in the later case do not automatically get vitiated. Each case has to be judged on its own merits. Unless prejudice is shown to have been caused to the accused, the proceedings in the later case do not get vitiated." The Reference made to the Full Bench was answered accordingly. 11. Each case has to be judged on its own merits. Unless prejudice is shown to have been caused to the accused, the proceedings in the later case do not get vitiated." The Reference made to the Full Bench was answered accordingly. 11. In the light of the above, even though in the instant case, the Sessions Judge's Court appears to have commenced the recording of the evidence on the same day, however, the trial continued on subsequent different dates and concluded on two different dates. After a thorough scrutiny of the material placed before us, we do not find that the said process followed by the Sessions Judge's Court in recording of the evidence has not caused any prejudice to the accused in either of the case. Still, after concluding the recording of the evidence, the Trial Court ought to have heard the arguments in both the matters separately and disposed of each of the case by its separate judgments. It is at this point that the Trial Court has erred by observing that they have to be decided simultaneously as such, both the sessions cases were clubbed with each other. The said act of clubbing both the sessions cases which have emanated from a case and a counter case together in S.C. No.35/2012 and disposing of both the case and the counter case under a common judgment dtd. 27/11/2019, though by the same Court is not in consonance with the principles laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Hosakeri Ningappa's case (supra). As such, the impugned common judgment challenged in both these appeals deserves to be set aside and the matter requires to be remitted to the Sessions Judge's Court to enable it to hear the final argument in both the maters afresh and dispose of both the matters in accordance with law through separate judgments by following the principles laid down in Hosakeri Ningappa's case (supra). 12. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER [i] Both the criminal appeals stand partly allowed. The common judgment dtd. 27/11/2019 passed in S.C. No.35/2012 and S.C. No.38/2012 by the Court of the First Additional District and Sessions Judge at Haveri stands set aside. 12. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER [i] Both the criminal appeals stand partly allowed. The common judgment dtd. 27/11/2019 passed in S.C. No.35/2012 and S.C. No.38/2012 by the Court of the First Additional District and Sessions Judge at Haveri stands set aside. [ii] Both, the S.C. No.35/2012 and S.C. No.38/2012 are remanded back to the Sessions Judge's Court by restoring those cases on the file for its disposal in accordance with law and in the light of the observation made above, however from the stage of hearing the main argument in both the matters. Since the impugned judgment pertaining to S.C. No.35/2012 and S.C. No.38/2012 having been set aside and the matter having been remanded to the Sessions Judge's Court, the fine amount deposited, if any, by the accused in both the cases be refunded to the respective accused, however upon their due identification and in accordance with law. In order to avoid any further delay in the disposal of the sessions cases, which have been remanded now, both side parties in both the criminal appeals (S.C. No.35/2012 and S.C. No.38/2012) are directed to appear before the Sessions Judge's Court on 2/2/2023 at 11.00 a.m. without anticipating any further notice or direction from the Sessions Judge's Court. Registry to transmit copies of this judgment along with trial court records to the concerned Sessions Judge's Court immediately.