( 1 ) THESE two revision applications arise out of an order that came to be passed by the learned City Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No : 195 of 1998 below application Exh. 7, 8 and 15 tendered before him. These applications were tendered on behalf of the different accused persons for discharge. The learned Additional City Sessions Judge after considering the arguments advanced and their merits, passed impugned order on 2 2/01/1999 granting application and rejecting remaining two applications. The State having been aggrieved by grant of application Exh. 6 discharging accused No. 8 has preferred Criminal Revision Application No : 141/99. While these applications were being argued, the arguments were advanced for discharge of accused No. 2 and 6 before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order, did not consider the oral request for discharge of accused No. 2 and 6 for which the accused No. 2 and 6 are aggrieved and they have therefore preferred Criminal Revision Application No : 220 of 1999 seeking quashing and setting aside the direction of the learned Additional City Sessions Judge for framing charge against accused p