- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. Heard Sri K. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the ap plicant and the learned A. G. A.
(2.) THIS revision has been preferred against the order dated 15-1- 99, passed by the Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad and also against committal order dated 18-12-98. The facts giving rise to the present revision arc as follows. A F. I. R. was lodged on the basis of which the investigation was started by the police of P. S. Garh Muktesh-war. Thereafter the investigation was trans ferred to P. S. Mussorie. On further objection it was transferred to S. I. S. Ghaziabad. Ob jections were further raised and the inves tigation is now being done with the permis sion of the Magistrate by the CB CID. There are other accused persons also. On the basis of the charge-sheet the applicant was committed to the Court of Sessions by the Magistrate by order dated 18-12-98. After committal the cog nizance of the case was taken by the Ses sions Judge, Ghaziabad by order dated 15-1-99. The applicant is aggrieved by the these orders. It is contended that the inves tigation is being done by the CB CID and therefore, the proceedings against the ap plicant should be stayed.
(3.) I do not find any force in the sub missions of the learned counsel for the applicant. The charge-sheet has already been submitted against the applicant. He is in jail and is being tried on the basis of the said charge-sheet. There is no illegality and infirmity in any of these two orders. The revision has no force and it is dis missed summarily v. Revision dismissed. .;