C.L. Pangarkar, J.

Rule, heard forthwith with consent of parties.

2. This is a Criminal Revision Application by the original accused No.2. The original accused No.2 has preferred this revision because of the fact that the learned Sessions Judge has refused to discharge him in Sessions Case No. 25/2006.

3. A few facts may be stated thus :

The accused No. 2 i.e. the present petitioner is facing sessions trial before the Sessions Judge, Panaji. It is alleged that the present petitioner hatched a conspiracy alongwith accused No. 1 to do away with one Praveen Grover. Praveen Grover had business relations with the present petitioner as well as accused No. 1/Sunil Thukral. The disputes arose between them and accordingly a conspiracy was hatched and the deceased was killed actually by accused No. 3/Ashpak Bengre. After the investigation was over, charge sheet came to be filed against the three accused i.e. the present petitioner, Sunil Thukral and Ashpak Bengre.

4. When the Court proceeded to frame charge against the accused, the learned counsel for the accused requested to hear him before framing of the charge. The counsel addressed the Court with a sole objective that the Court should