HASIM MIAN Vs. SUNDER PASWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition in revision is directed against an order of a Munsif-Magistrate dated the 12th November, lt;68, by which he dismissed the prayer of the petitioner to commit the ease before him to the Court of Session to be tried along with the sessions case of the opposite party.

(2.) The short facts are, that the petitioner filed a petition of complaint before (he Sub, divisional Officer, Sahara, alleging that, in the morning of the 24th May, 1966, opposite-party No. 1 Sundar Paswan was getting Mungmaize and paddy crops of the petitioner grazed by two heads of bullocks. Nabijan, the uncle of the petitioner, protested and drove the bullocks towards the pound. Upon this, Sundae Paawaa called hit) men and they began to assault Nabijan with lathis. Nabijan waa examined at the Mehsi hospital on the next day. It ia alleged that the complaint was filed along with the receipts granted by the pound-keeper aa well as the medical certificate granted by the civil Assistant Surgeon. Tha learned Sub.divisional Officer took cognizance and traaaferred the caaa to the file of Shri B. P. Verma, Munsif-Magistrate first class. There appeacs to be a counter.cftpe of this version. Opposite party No. 1 lodged a first information report before the police alleging that, on the 24th May, 1966, at about 8 a. m., the petitioner and others of his party came upon the land, The case of the opposite party was that they had taken the land in settlement from the State of Bihar and had erected a residential hut over it; they were living in the hut and were cultivating the land. The petitioner was claiming the land by virtue of settlement from the ex-landlord. The petitioner and others, after coming to the land, asserted their right. Opposite party No. 1 was working in the field, along with his cousin. The party of the petitioners assaulted him and fire to the hut which was burnt to ashes. This case was also transferred to the sama Munsif-Magistrate, who committed the accused in that ease to the Court of Session. A petition was filed on behalf of the patitioner before the Munsif-Magistrate that as both the cases were in the nature of counter. cases, both of them should be committed to the Court of Session. The learned Munsif-Magistrate rejected this petition. There was a revision before the Sessions Judge, who, though holding that both the cases were counter to each other, declined to make a reference to this Court recommending that this case should also be committed to the Court of Session, on the ground of delay. As against this order, the present revision has been tiled.

(3.) Mr, Brajeshwar Mallik, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has urged that real justice to the parties would not be done unless the whole picture of the occurrence is present before the Court. If two Courts try the cases separately, then they will not have the whole picture before them. The version of the counter-case should be examined by the same Judge and then he would be able to do justice to both the parties. The complaint ease in the one is the defence ease in the other. In support of his argument, fa. 9 has referred to two cases, namely, Netra Parida v. State, 1981 (1) Cri L J 688 (Orissa) and Thota Ramakrishnayya v. State , which was followed in the case of Netra Panda 1961 (1) Cri L J 688 (Orissa). In the case of Thota Ratnkrishnayya there is an elaborate discussion concerning the matter in hand. That case was really an appeal after conviction by the Sessions Judge. Even then, the following observations were made :