ORDER :

RAMANNA, J.:—

This Revision Petition preferred by the revision petitioner - accused No. 10 under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr. P.C. is directed against the order dated 14.12.2000 passed in S.C. No. 210/1997 on the file of the Prl. Sessions Judge, Bijapur, by the impugned order the Court below has dismissed the application filed by the revision petitioner - accused No. 10 under Section 227 Cr. P.C.

2. The brief facts leading to this petition is that on 12.8.1996 on the road leading to Vittal Mandir, Bijapur, at about 9.30 a.m. within the jurisdiction of Gandhichowk police station, Bijapur, accused Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6, armed with deadly weapons, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object to commit the murder of Mahalingappa Veerabhadrappa Patil (hereinafter referred to as “M.V. Patil” in short). The revision petitioner - accused No. 10 and accused No. 1 being the friend and classmate of accused Nos. 2 to 9 and the deceased intended to take vengeance against M.V. Patil by committing murder. In pursuance thereof the revision petitioner hired the accused persons A-2 to A-6 and A-9 in agreement with deceased A-1, A-7 and A-8 to provide money and vehicle for committing the murder. Ultimately, they committed murder of M.V. Patil on that broad day light near the Vittal Mandi, Bijapur. Therefore, after completion of the investigation the charge sheet has been filed against all the accused persons including this petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and Sections 114, 109, and 120-B I.P.C.

3. During the pendency of the trial the petitioner herein had filed a petition before the Sessions Court, Bijapur, for discharge since the Trial Court kept the application pending and therefore this petitioner approached this Court in Crl. P. 4118/2002 seeking direction to the Trial Court to dispose of the application. Accordingly, the said petition was allowed by this Court. In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court the learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides, dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner by an order dated 4.12.2002. As against this the petitioner has come up with this Revision Petition.

4. In this behalf the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner argued that according to the F.I.R. the deceased accused No. 1 Gopala Gowda and accused Nos. 7 and 8 said to have been committed the murder of M.V. Patil since the accused Nos. 2 to 6 and 9 had an ill-will against the deceased M.V. Patil. Therefore they alleged to have approached the revision petitioner to hatch a conspiracy to commit murder of the deceased with the help of hired accused persons. Accordingly, on 12.8.1996 at about 9.30 a.m. they murdered M.V. Patil.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no direct evidence with regard to the involvement of accused 10 - petitioner in the commission of the offence to invoke Section 120-B of the I.P.C. The petitioner is a practicing advocate and in order to tarnish his image a false case has been foisted. Further it is contended that statements of C.W. 13, Basavaraj and C.W. 14, Ashok, recorded on 12.8.1996 and further statements on 18.8.1996, so also the statements of C.W. 15, Neelavva wife of the deceased, C.W. 16, Geetha, daughter of the deceased, C.W. 17, Kalavathi, C.W. 18, Siddappa Ningappa Hogare, C.W. 22, Thammannappa Siddagoudappa Gavigere, clearly show that the name of this petitioner taken as Basappa @ Basavaraj, but their statements said to have been recorded on 12.8.1996 does not discloses that this petitioner being an advocate had a conspiracy with other accused persons who were hired to commit the murder. It was also contended that there is a delay in recording the statements of the aforesaid witnesses. The aforesaid witnesses are not the eye witnesses. A case came to be registered only on the basis of a complaint of one Sridhara, son of Ganapath Rao, whereas the aforesaid