S. P. Sinha, J.

By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks an ORDER :quashing Annexures ‘1' and 2 of the petition. Annexure 1' is an ORDER :passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Supaul, dated the 23rd September. 1974, in Case no. 316 of 1968 by which he has refixed the trial after reframing of the charge and for examination of two of the prosecution witnesses after reframing of the charge. Annexure 2 is an ORDER :passed by the learned second Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa who had been moved in revision against the ORDER :passed under Annexure 1'. The revision of Annexure 1’ was refused by Annexure 2.

2. The facts of this case lie in short compass.

The petitioner filed a criminal case before the Sub-divisional Officer, Supaul, against respondent no. 2 to 7. After examining the petitioner, who was the comp1ainant, on solemn affirmation cognizance of certain offences was taken against the said respondents. On the 24th September, 1970, charges under Sections 143, 379, 427 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code were framed. On this very date, an application under Section 540A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereina