1. This Rule is directed against an interlocutory order dated 27-4-68 passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate (South), Chittagong rejecting an application for stay of further proceeding of a case.
2. At the instance of the complainant opposite-party the Bashkhali P. S. Case No. 5(3)/67 under section 148/149/307/--326/379, P. P. C. Was started against the accused petitioner and others. The police investigated into the case and submitted a charge-sheet. During the pendency of the matter before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, the accused petitioner filed an applica--tion on 27-4- 68 praying for stay of further proceeding of the case on the grounds inter alia, that the Bashkhali P.
3. S. Case No. 2(3)/67 under sections 148/149/302, P. P. C, brought by the accuse6 petitioner against the complainant opposite-party and others being the earlier one in point of time and ready for evidence and that case being the rnatn case over the occur--rence. The further proceeding of the present case should be stayed till the disposal of .The other case. The learned Magistrate rejected the application bN an order dated 27-4-68. The accused petitioner challenged the propriety of the above order before the Sessions Judge, Chittagong under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but the learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties rejected the motion. Hence the present petition before this Court.
4. Mr. K. M. Subhan, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that the proceeding of the Case No. 5(3)/67 should be stayed till the disposal of the Case No. 2(3)/67 on the self same grounds as set out above.
5. I think, I cannot readily accept the contention of the learned Advocate advanced in this respect.
6. The records show that the Bashkhali P. S. Case Nos. 2(3)/67 and 5(3)/67 are two counter cases arising out of the same occurrence. In both the cases, the Police after completion of investigation has submitted charge--sheets against the respective accused persons.
7. It is one of the cardinal principles that the two counter cases arising out of the same occurrence should be tried and disposed of by the same Court simultaneously one after another for the sake of convenience. The two counter cases having arisen out of the same occurrence, the ends of justice requires that both the cases should be tried simultaneously one after another, weighing the evidence of each case independently without mixing and using the evidence of one in another. The case of Shahed Ali v. The State (PLD 1962 Dacca 576) support the above views.
8. It is true that there is ho express provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for adopting such a procedure in disposing the counter cases but this has been a long established practice for the sake of convenience and I find no reason to differ from that practice which has the usage of law.
9. Simply because the charge-sheet has been submitted in one case earlier the case should not be heard and disposed of independently and separately leaving the other case or staying the further proceeding o that case indefinitely. There is of course no bar in law to the cases being tried by two different Courts but such a procedure is always open to risk of conflicting finding. I have already said earlier that in the interest of justice both the cases should be tried and disposed of simultaneously by the same Court one after another and I find no reason to make a departurethe present case. In this view of the matter do not find any substance in the point raised by the learned Advocate.
10. The learned Magistrate has rightly rejected the prayer for stay of further proceeding of the particular case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered the question in his judgment at length.
11. There is no substance in this revisional application and the Rule is accordingly discharged.