1. This petition in revision by the informant petitioner is directed against the order dated 11-7-1994 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali in S. T. No. 190/93, State v. Raj Kumar Singh and others, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the petition (Annexure-3) filed by the informant petitioner.

In the said petition (Annexure-3) it had been stated that the record had been split up due to non-appearance of the absconding accused and in order that there may not be any technical difficulty in using the evidence of the witnesses which may be recorded in the case, against the absconder accused it was necessary, as required by Section 299 of the Cr. P. C, that evidence be brought on record regarding the fact that some of the accused were absconding in spite of attachment of their property by police personnel. In the petition, the prayer was to summon the police personael to prove that some of ths accused were absconding in 6pite of attachment of their property.

2. The impugned order (Annexure-4) dated 11-7-1994 shows that the informant petitioner had filed similar petition earlier which had been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judg