D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS Revision is directed against the order of the Special Judge passed on 13. 11. 2000 whereby he has rejected the application of accused Nos. 4 and 5 for being discharged of the offences u/s. 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 (1) of the Bombay Police Act.

( 2 ) SHRI M. M. Tirmizi, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Shri H. H. Patel, learned A. P. P. have been heard.

( 3 ) IT may be mentioned that applications of accused Nos. 4 and 5 for discharge u/s. 227 Cr. P. C. was rejected, but the instant revision has been filed only by Ibrahimbhai @ Ibu Kalumiya Mansuri, who is said to be accused No. 5, before the trial Judge. As such the case of accused No. 4 for discharge is not being considered nor this order shall apply either in favour or against the accused No. 4.

( 4 ) SEVERAL objections have been taken by the learned A. P. P. regarding jurisdiction of this Court to interfere in such matters and also in what manner the impugned order should be examined and disturbed.

( 5 ) LEARNED A. P. P. Shri Patel has referred to the case of STATE OF U. P. rf UDAINARAYAN and ANR. , reported in (1999) 8 SCC 741 and has drawn my attention in what

Click Here to Read the rest of this document