( 1 ) THE petitioner has raised questions of law which have far reaching effect, namely:-

1) Whether an order, passed in exercise of revisional powers under Cr. P. C. by a Sessions Judge can be set aside by his successor at the instance of the same petitioner when it was not challenged further. 2) Whether such an order, assuming it was passed not in revisional jurisdiction, attain finality?. 3) Whether the word evidence includes the statement in examination-in-chief of the witness who was not cross-examined fully? 4) Whether, a Sessions Judge can review an order passed under Section 244 Cr. P. C. by his predecessor suo-moto regardless of the considerations of limitation under the Limitation Act? 5) Can an Additional Sessions Judge before whom order of discharge was challenged set aside previous order of another Additional Sessions Judge and give directions thereunder?

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to the above questions are, that on 28th Oc- tober, 1987 a complaint under Section 135 (1) (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Sec- tion 85 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was filed against the present petitioner in the court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (in short learned ACMM ). On 23rd August, 1989 Inspector (Preventive) Customs (Public Witness-1) was called to the wit- ness box. His examination-in-chief was recorded. To some extent he was cross- rxamined also. On one of the date of the cross-examination, adjournment was sought by counsel for the present petitioner for confronting the witness with some documents. Adjournment was granted. But thereafter the said witness Shri V. P. S. Khurana (Public Witness- 1) was not produced inspite of number of opportunities having been given to the Cus- tom Department. At last on 21st November, 1994 warning was also administered. On that day last opportunity was given to the prosecution to produce Public Witness-1 for cross-ex- amination. Inspite of the warning that evidence would be closed the prosecution did not produce Public Witness-1 on the date fixed nor furnished any cogent reason for his non-ap- pearance. Even thereafter six more opportunities were afforded to the prosecution to adduce the said witness. But prosecution failed to do so. Hence when Public Witness-1 was not produced the learned ACMM Mrs. Sunita Gupta, Vide her order dated 23rd July, 1997 closed prosecution s pre-charge evidence as she found that neither any evidence was produced nor any explanation worth the name was tendered. The order of closure of pre-charge evidence was challenged by (he Customs Department i. e. by the prosecution by way of revision. The said, revision was heard by Shri N. K. Gupta, learned Additional Sessions Judge, who vide his order dated 29th July, 1998 dismissed the revision, inter alia, on the ground that right of speedy trial had been infringed. Case had been pending for the last ten years but the prosecution did not care to complete even the pre-charge evidence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the order of Mrs. Sunita Gupta, learned ACMM was unimpeachable. After dismising the revision petition, he remanded the case to the Court of learned ACMM presided over by Mrs. Sangita Dhingra Sehgal. In the absence of any evidence the learned ACMM found that there was no incriminating case made out against the accused. Finding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case and, therefore, no reliance could be placed on the statement of the accused recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act as the same was neither proved nor corroborated from any other material on record. She, therefore, discharged the accused i,e. the present petitioner. The order of discharge was assailed by the prosecution i. e. Custom Department (respondent herein) by way of revision petition. It was listed before Shri G. P. Thareja, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi who by the impugned order not only set aside the order of discharge but also the order of closure of pre