RAJENDRAN Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUVATTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/2nd accused in S.C.No.3 of 1996 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, has preferred the present revision aggrieved against the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated 8.4.1999.

(2.) THE case in brief is as follows: THE petitioner is the 2nd accused in S.C.No.3 of 1996 pending on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge at Kanyakumari District and he is the complainant in the counter case registered in Cr.No.449 of 1994 by Thiruvattar Police. THE offences are under Sec.147, 148, 346, 324, 325 and 307, I.P.C. THE learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint and the petitioner filed Crl.R.C.No.384 of 1996 on the file of this Court and the revision was allowed and the Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram was directed to take the complaint on file, the counter case being a case exclusively triable by the Court of Session both the cases arise out of the same transaction and they have to be tried by the same Court. THE occurrence and place of offences in both the cases are almost one and the same. If two cases are disposed of by two different Courts, there would be conflict of decision. THE learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner to keep S.C.No.3 of 1996 pending on its file till the disposal of the counter case and aggrieved against this, the present revision has been filed.

(3.) THE learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) contended that since the case and the counter case arise out of the same transaction, in the interest of justice, both the cases can be tried together to avoid conflict of decision. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial of S.C.No.3 of 1996 can be kept pending till the disposal of the other case. I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. THE private complaint is pending without any progress for the last two years. THE petitioner being the complainant may be interested in delaying the prosecution against him and as such I am of the view that both the cases have to be tried together by one and the same Court to avoid conflict of decision. THE learned counsel for the respondents also relied on Mitthulal v. State of M.P. 1975 Crl.L.J. 236 that it is elementary that each case must be decided on the evidence recorded in it and evidence recorded in another case though it may be a relevant one cannot be taken into account for arriving at the decision. Even in civil cases this cannot be done unless the parties are agreed that the evidence in one case may be treated as evidence in the other. THEre is no dispute about this principle. It is not applicable to the case on hand. THEre may not be any joint trial, but at the same time both the cases can be simultaneously tried together by one and the same Court and judgment also can be pronounced simultaneously. Hence, the point is answered accordingly.