- (1.) K. K. Chaubey, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. This petition purporting to be a revision has been filed against the order dated 12. 7. 1991 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi by which he allowed the revision petition and set aside the order dated 31. 3. 89 of the City Magistrate, Jhansi dismissing the petition under Section 135,cr. P. C.
(2.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order has remanded the case to the court below only on two points, firstly, according to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the learned City Magistrate should not have rejected the oral testimony on the ground that the witnesses are interested and secondly, he was of the view that the affidavits of some other case could not be relied upon and in any case, where an applica tion had been moved for bringing these affidavits on record, the learned Magistrate should have decided the point as to whether the affidavits are admissible in evidence or not. On these points, the case has been remanded for re-writing the judgment after consideration of the evidence on record. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant at length and have also gone through the documents on the record. I do not find any material irregularity or error in the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge so as to interfere with present this petition, which is summarily rejected. As directed by the revisional court the learned City Magistrate will re-hear the argument of the learned counsel for the parties and decide the case afresh after taking into consideration all the admissible evidence. A copy of this order may be given to the learned counsel for the applicant on payment of necessary charges. Revision rejected. .;