BADAL CHOWDHURY Vs. STATE OF W B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is directed against the order dated 22nd July. 1988 passed by the learned S.D.J.M.. Kalna rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to transfer G. R. Case No. 134 of 1985 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 379 and 323 of the I.P.C. pending before that Court to the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Burdwan for trial along with G. R. Case No. 133 of 1985 under Section 304 of the I.P.C. which was exclusively sessions triable and was pending before the latter Court for trial.

(2.) It is the contention of the petitioner that both the cases having arisen out of the same incident, must be tried together otherwise their separate trial may lead not only to multiplicity of proceedings but also to conflict of decisions. In support of this contention, Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, relies upon two decisions of the Apex Court. One reported in AIR 1980 SC 1780 : (1980 Cri LJ 1271) and another reported in 2001 Cri. L.R. (SC) 241. In the former case it has been held that if two cases exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions arising out of the same transaction, are tried by two different Courts, there is a risk of two Courts coming to conflicting findings and to obviate such a risk, it is ordinarily desirable that the two cases should be tried separately but by the same Court. In the latter case, it has been held by their Lordships that even where one case is sessions triable and the other is triable by the Magistrate but they having arisen out of the same transaction, it is the salutary principle that such two cases, sometimes called case and counter-case, should be tried by the same Court because according to their Lordships, when two criminal cases relate to the same incident, if they are not tried and disposed of by the same Court by pronouncing the judgment on the same day, two different versions may come out in case of their separate trial by separate Courts. Hence it was the mandate of their Lordships that in such an exigency such pair of cases arising out of the same transaction must be heard and disposed of by the same Court and the judgments are to be pronounced on the same day, although however there is no necessity that they should be tried analogously or together.

(3.) Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State, has not been able to dispute this position of law but he worries that after 12 years of pendency if at. this juncture step is not taken for an early disposal of the cases, then the plight of the parties is anybody's guess.