I.A. Ansari, J.

1. The order under challenge, in the present revision, was passed, on 28.7.2003, by the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon, in Sessions Case No. 95/2002, whereby the learned Sessions Judge held to the effect that to the facts and circumstances of the Sessions Case, in question, the provisions of Section 299 Code of Criminal Procedure were applicable. With the conclusion, so reached, the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the prosecution to tender the evidence, which was, in the absence of the accused-Petitioner, recorded in the trial of the co-accused.

2. I have heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned Counsel for the accused-Petitioner, and Mr. B.S. Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

3. Before discussing the legality, correctness or propriety of the order, dated 28.7.2003, aforementioned, some material facts and various stages, which have led to the passing of the impugned order, may be noticed as follows:

A written Ejahar was filed at Jagiroad Police Station, on 22.10.90, by the complainant (hereinafter referred to as 'S') alleging, inter alia, that on the previous night i.e., on 21.10.99, accused Jamaluddin, Abdul Rob and Boka @ Ajit Roy had forcibly ent