- (1.) N. B. Asthama, J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A. G. A.
(2.) IT appears that Sessions Trial No. 449 of 1980-State v. Laxmi and others, Sections 148, 302/149, 436, 324 and 323/149, IPC was transferred to the Court of IXth Addl. Sessions Judge on 9-9-1987. The trial Judge was of the opinion that offence under Section 396, IPC also appears to have been made out against the accused and transferred the case for trial before Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Areas), Agra. 6-6-1988 was fixed for framing charge under Section 396, IPC. It has been argued that in view of Section 322, Cr. P. C. as the offence is triable by Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Areas) Agra the accused have the right to cross-examine the witnesses afresh as the entire evidence recorded by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Agra cannot be road in evidence. It has also stated that the Addl. Sessions Judge had no power to transfer the case without specific orders of the Sessions Judge. It has also been argued that Section 326, Cr. P. C. is not applicable in the instant case. However, at the time of arguments it was stated that the revisionist would be satisfied if the prosecution witnesses are permitted to be cross-examined in the light of the charge framed under Section 396, IPC.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel of the parties and taking note of the submissions made on behalf of the revisionist I direct that in case addi tional charge was framed under Section 396, IPC by the Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Areas), Agra then the revisionist would be given an opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses in the light of the provisions of law as laid down in Section 217, Cr. P. C. With the above observation the revision is finally disposed of. Revision disposed of. .;