- (1.) P. K. Jain, J. Heard Sri U. K. Saxena, learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA.
(2.) THE present revision has been filed against the order dated 25-7-97 directing framing of the charge against the revisionist and also against charge -dated 25-7-97 under Sections 302 read with Sec- tion34,ipcand201,ipc. On the report dated 30-6-95 a case under Sections 363/365/302/201/120-B/34, IPC was registered against the revisionist and three others. Allegations were that Smt. Sushma Singh, mother of the first informant, was untraceable since 7-6- 95. Her (first-informant's) father had illicit relations with Asha Singh and she suspected both of them had committed murder of Sushma Singh. Prior to this incident also they had attempted to com mit murder of Smt. Sushma Singh and a case in this regard is pending in district Sagar, State of Madhya Pradesh. It was also stated in the first information report that' the first informant and her sister Nitoo Singh were afraid of the accused persons and were constantly receiving threatening telephone calls on account of which they had left their permanent house. It was also stated in the first information report that photo copies of the writings left by her mother are also being sent with the first information report. During investigation statements of number of witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer.
(3.) AFTER the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, the learned Addi tional Sessions Judge, on the basis of the material collected during investigation, passed the impugned order whereby he directed that charges under Sections 302 read with Section 34, IPC and 201, IPC be framed against the present revisionist. This order is challenged on the ground that there was no material before the learned Sessions Judge for framing charges and the material collected during investigation has been wrongly inter preted.;