Deepak Maheshwari, J.Heard learned counsel for both the sides.

This criminal transfer application has been preferred on behalf of complainant Ram Prasad praying that Criminal Case No. 99/2015, State v. Pappulal and Ors.. pending before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate No.(7) Jaipur Metropolitan, may kindly be ordered to be committed to the Court of Special Judge NDPS cases Jaipur Metropolitan to be trial along with Sessions Case No. 30/2016 State v. Ram Prasad and Ors.. No reply to this application has been filed on behalf of accused-respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Criminal Case No. 99/2015, State v. Pappulal and Ors.. and Sessions Case No. 30/2016, State v. Ram Prasad and Ors.., have arisen out of the same incident and therefore they are cross cases. He has mentioned that the complainant moved an application under the provisions of Section 323 Cr.P.C., 1973 before Metropolitan Magistrate No. 7 to commit the case to the NDPS Court Jaipur Metropolitan where case No. 30/2015 was pending. The application was rejected by Metropolitan Magistrate No. 7 vide order dated 29.04.2017. An application was moved before learned Sessions Judge also which was later on withdrawn. Hence, this application has been moved under the provisions of Section 407 Cr.P.C., 1973 before this Court to seek the order to get the case committed for trial to NDPS Court.

3. Learned counsel for the accused-respondent has opposed the prayer. While referring to the order-sheet dated 27.04.2017 drawn by learned NDPS Judge, he has stated that the case is pending at the advanced stage for recording statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 On the contrary the case pending before Metropolitan Magistrate No. 7. is at the initial stage of recording prosecution evidence. He submits that this transfer petition has been moved simply to delay the proceedings of the case. If the case is ordered to be committed it will cause unnecessary delay.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced by rival sides. This is not in disputed that both the cases have arisen out of the same incident and therefore they are cross cases. It is apparently clear that under the provisions Section 323 Cr.P.C., 1973 if the trial Court finds it necessary at any stage of the case that it should be tried by the Sessions Court, it should commit the case to the Sessions Court. It appears that in the matter in hand, both the cases are required to be tried by the same Court, so as to avoid the possibility of any contrary conclusions when the trial is completed. It is to be noted that learned Metropolitan Magistrate has not rejected the prayer made by complainant on the ground that it is not a cross case. The ground for rejection of the application is that he cannot commit the case to NDPS Court, which is a Special Court. It appears that learned Metropolitan Magistrate has ignored the fact that NDPS Court is functioning as ordinary Sessions Court only, while trying the case for the offences under Sections 323, 325, 341 and 308 IPC. Thus the rejection order dated 29.04.2017 is not found in accordance with the provision of section 323 of Cr.P.C., 1973

5. Thus the case pending before Metropolitan Magistrate No. 7 appears to be essentially tried along with the case No. 30/2016 pending before NDPS Court. As per the provisions contained in Section 407 Cr.P.C., 1973 this Court finds it appropriate to order that the case No. 99/2015 pending before the M.M. No. 7 Jaipur Metropolitan be committed to the Court of NDPS Jaipur Metropolitan to be tried as a cross case of Sessions Case No. 30/2016.

6. In view of the above, the transfer petition is allowed. Copy of the order be sent to both the Courts below to ensure compliance of the order and proceed with the trial of two cases mentioned above, together.

7. The transfer petition is allowed.