JUDGMENT : (M. G. UMA, J.) The appellants in Criminal Appeal No.1062 of 2013 being accused Nos.1 and 2 in SC No.105 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Mandya, (for short 'the Trial Court'), are impugning the judgment of conviction dated 30.09.2013 and order of sentence dated 03.10.2013 convicting accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, and convicting accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC, with default sentences, while acquitting them for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 307 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. The defacto complainant in SC No.52 of 2012 before the Trial Court, is seeking to set aside the judgment of acquittal dated 30.09.2013 and to convict the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 307 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. Brief facts of the case as made out by the prosecution is that, on 19.11.2009 at about 8.30 p.m., when PWs.3 to 5 in SC No.105 of 2010 went near milk dairy, accused Nos.1 and 2 who are having ill-will against them came to the spot and picked up quarrel. Accused No.1 held PW3 with his neck, accused No.2 bit the left hand index finger of PW3. When PWs.4 and 5 tried to intervene in the matter, accused No.2 assaulted PW4 with soda bottle on his head. Immediately, accused No.1 snatched the said bottle and assaulted PW5.Thereby caused injuries to PWs.3 to 5. 4. In SC No.52 of 2012, the prosecution witnesses in SC No.105 of 2010 are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3. It is stated that on the same date, time and place, these accused have assaulted PWs.4 and 8 who are none other than accused Nos.1 and 2 in SC No.105 of 2010 and assaulted and caused injuries. Thereby, they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 307 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC. 5. In SC No.105 of 2010, the Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused. The accused appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14 and identified MOs.1 to 5. 5. In SC No.105 of 2010, the Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused. The accused appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14 and identified MOs.1 to 5. The accused denied all the incriminating materials available on record in their statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., but not led any evidence nor got marked any documents in support of their defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused have preferred Criminal Appeal No.1062 of 2013. 6. In SC No.52 of 2012, the Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused. The accused appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 and identified MOs.1 and 2. The accused denied all the incriminating materials available on record in their statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., but not led any evidence nor got marked any documents in support of their defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused for the charges leveled against them. Being aggrieved by the same, the defacto complainant has preferred Criminal Appeal No.1180 of 2013 seeking to set aside the impugned judgment of acquittal and to convict the accused for the charges leveled against them. 7. Heard Sri S Sathyanarayana Chalke, learned counsel for the appellants, Smt Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP for respondent - State and Sri Kushal Gowda, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 in Criminal Appeal No.1180 of 2013. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 8. 7. Heard Sri S Sathyanarayana Chalke, learned counsel for the appellants, Smt Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP for respondent - State and Sri Kushal Gowda, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 in Criminal Appeal No.1180 of 2013. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.1062 of 2013 contended that since the date, time and place of incident in both these cases are one and the same, the procedure as contemplated in Full Bench decision of this Court in State of Karnataka, by Circle Inspector of Police Vs Hosakeri Ningappa and Another , [ILR 2012 KAR 509] , was required to be followed. But admittedly, the said procedure is not followed and under such circumstances, the appeal is to be allowed and the accused are required to be acquitted. 9. Learned Additional SPP for the respondent - State fairly conceded that both these cases are case and counter case and that the procedure as required is not followed. But, however, contended that there are sufficient materials to convict the accused in both the cases. Hence, prays to allow Criminal Appeal No.1180 of 2013 and to convict the accused and prays for dismissal of Criminal Appeal No.1062 of 2013 and to confirm the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. 10. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the points that would arise for my consideration is: (i) Whether the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.1062 of 2013 have made out any grounds to interfere with impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and to acquit them for the charges leveled against them? (ii) Whether the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1180 of 2013 has made out any ground to set aside the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court?" My answer to point No.1 is in the 'Affirmative and point No.2 in the 'Negative' for the following: REASONS 11. In Hosakeri Ningappa (supra), the Full Bench of this Court have considered various decisions as well as the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court to find out as to what was the procedure that is to be followed by the Investigating Officer as well as by the Courts while dealing with case and counter case. In Hosakeri Ningappa (supra), the Full Bench of this Court have considered various decisions as well as the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court to find out as to what was the procedure that is to be followed by the Investigating Officer as well as by the Courts while dealing with case and counter case. It has observed that there is no statute governing the procedure to be adopted in case and counter case or cross cases. But however, it was noted that the Hon'ble Apex Court had laid down the procedure for trial in such matters. In the absence of any statutory law, the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, binds on all the Courts in India as per Article14 of Constitution of India, is to be treated as good law. 12. It is to be noted that initially the Division Bench has referred the following questions for consideration to the larger Bench, which is as follows: (1) Whether the proceedings are vitiated if the case and counter case are not tried as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nathi Lal vs. State of U.P. reported in 1990 SCC (Cri) 638 and Sudhir and others vs. State of M.P. reported in 2001 SCC (Cri)387? (2) Whether the evidence recorded in one case can be looked into in the other case? If so, when and to what extent? (3) If the Trial Court disposes of case and counter case on different dates acquitting the accused therein and no appeal is preferred in one of the cases and appeal is preferred in the case decided later whether the proceedings in the later case are vitiated?" 13. After discussing at length, the larger Bench answered the reference at paragraph 18 as follows: "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 vs. STATE OF U.P.(Supra) and in the case of SUDHIR AND OTHERS vs. 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 section 465 of the code. 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 section 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 the 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." 14. In the present case, even though the Investigating officer investigated into both the cases, the charge sheet came to be filed on different dates i.e., first charge sheet came to be filed on 01.03.2010 and the other came to be filed on 31.03.2010. Even though matters were tried before the same Court, they were not tried as case and counter case. It is brought to the notice of this Court that even though the prosecution has not referred to the evidence recorded in the connected matter, the Trial Court proceeded to refer to the evidence in the other matter to determine the case either in favour or against the accused. 15. It is not in dispute that the eye witnesses referred to in both the cases are the accused in the other case. Except the injured eye witnesses, none of the independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. 15. It is not in dispute that the eye witnesses referred to in both the cases are the accused in the other case. Except the injured eye witnesses, none of the independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. There is no explanation in SC No.105 of 2010 as to how and why the accused sustained injury. Similar is the case with SC No.52 of 2012, as there is no explanation as to why and how the accused sustained injury, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Under such circumstances, the accused in SC No.52 of 2012 were acquitted by the Trial Court rightly. But it has committed an error in convicting accused No.1 in SC No.105 of 2010 for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and accused No.2 for the offence under Section 326 of IPC without any basis. 16. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the conviction of accused Nos.1 and 2 in SC No.105 of 2010 was not supported by any materials and non following of the procedure has definitely occurred failure of justice and the entire proceedings of the trial court get vitiated. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.1062 of 2013 are also required to be acquitted for the offences under Sections 324 and 326 of IPC In view of the above, I am of the opinion that Criminal Appeal No.1062 of 2013 is liable to be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, while Criminal Appeal No.1180 of 2013 is required to be dismissed by confirming the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. 17. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Affirmative and point No.2 in the Negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Appeal No.1062 of 2013 is allowed. (ii) Criminal Appeal No.1180 of 2013 is dismissed. (iii) The judgment of conviction dated 30.09.2013 and the order of sentence dated 03.10.2013 passed in SC No.105 of 2010 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Mandya, is herby set aside. (iv) Consequently, accused Nos.1 and 2 in Criminal Appeal No.1062 of 2013 is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 of IPC. (v) Bail bond and that of sureties shall stand cancelled. (iv) Consequently, accused Nos.1 and 2 in Criminal Appeal No.1062 of 2013 is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 of IPC. (v) Bail bond and that of sureties shall stand cancelled. Fine amount, if any, deposited by accused Nos.1 and 2 is ordered to be refunded to them after appeal period is over. Registry to send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this judgment for information and for needful action.