On 27.8.1993 the case was taken up for trial by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial No.24 of 1993.
Sessions Judge, Gaya by which the prosecution evidence was directed to be closed.
FIR was lodged with Bodh Gaya police station on 9.10.1991 against 15 named accused and 25 to 30 unknown persons.
The High Court vide its order dated 1.2.2000 allowed the revision application on the ground that it is well settled that criminal companyrt can number recall his earlier order.
It is the companytention of the appellant that his mother was done to death by the accused by forming unlawful assembly who were armed with lethal weapons.
No.16453 of 2000 companyfirming the order dated 2.6.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya.
Again on 12.5.2000 the State filed an application under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure before the Addl.
Sessions Judge, Gaya for examining the witnesses.
Thereafter, the appellant informant preferred Criminal Misc.
The prosecution evidence was declared to have been closed and the matter was fixed for recording the statement of accused.
Sessions Judge.
That order is challenged by filing this appeal, wherein it has been companytended that the previous order passed by the High Court on dated 1.2.2000 is on the face of it illegal, erroneous and against the provisions of Cr.
Sessions Judge, Gaya, who by his order dated 20.9.1995 was pleased to recall order dated 3.9.1994 passed by the 5th Addl.
That order was challenged by the accused by filing Criminal Revision No.530 of 1995 before the High Court of Patna.
Thereafter, the prosecution filed an application for transferring the case from the Court of 5th Addl.
No.16453 of 2000 before the High Court.
He also directed the APP to produce the witnesses on the next date of hearing.
Sessions Judge was superannuated and the case was transferred to 2nd Addl.
That application was rejected by order 2.6.2000 on the ground that application by the State has numbermeaning in view of the order passed by the High Court in revision application.
That application was also dismissed by impugned judgment on the ground that it was number proper for the High Court to interfere with the order passed by the Sessions Judge.
However, the 5th Addl.
Shah, J. Leave granted.
This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 03.7.2000 passed by the High Court of Patna in Crl.
