1. But for the disturbing features in the legal parlance caused by the lower subordinate judiciary, there would not have been any occasion to admit this revision in exercising the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. The challenge before me in this revision pertains to the order passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore in Crl.M.P.No.315 of 1996 and S.C.No.83 of 1995 dated 4. 1996 refusing to refer the matter to the High Court under Section 395(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure or to remit the whole case to the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore to follow the procedure laid down under Section 306(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The matrix of the matter to be highlighted in brief is that in view of the previous enmity, the deceased - first accused, by name, Mahesh alias Maheswaran and Muralidharan, the petitioner herein are alleged to have entered into a criminal conspiracy along with one Mohankumar, who had been treated as an approver on 2. 1994 to commit the murder of one Dhakshinamurthy and in furtherance of the same at about 12.00 midnight on 8/2. 1994 the said deceased Dhakshinamurthy was taken from his house under some pretext or other to secluded place to the west of Ayyar Hospital, Udayampalayam road where the deceased -accused and the petitioner herein are said to have inflicted several cut injuries and stab wounds on the deceased Dhakshinamurthy with lethal weapons like koduval and button knife respectively, as a result of which the said Dhakshinamurthy succumbed to the injuries, subsequently in the hospital and hence, after the investigation made by the investigating agency by setting the law in motion, in a final report against the above accused for the commission of offences under Section 120 B and 302 in Indian Penal Code was filed before the Court and the same was taken congnizance of by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.3 Coimbatore in P.R.C.No.4 of 1995 on 35. 1995. It appears further that the case was committed to the Principal Sessions Court Coimbatore under the relevant procedural law as the case was found to be exclusively triable by a Court of Session and consequently, learned Principal Sessions Judge had made over the trial of the case to the Court below. It appears that after the commit, it was noticed that the other accused by name, Mahesh was not produced however, a report was received from the Superintendent of Central Prison, Coimbatore, stating that the said other accused had committed suicide in the prison itself by hanging and accordingly, the death of the other accused by name, Mahesh was recorded.

3. On perusing the entire materials placed before the trial court charges were framed against the accused/petitioner herein under Sections 120B and 302,1.P.C. and when questioned, the accused/petitioner pleaded not guilty.

4. In the meanwhile, the other accused, by name, Mohankumar had intended to turn as an approver and he was examined as P.W.I. P.W.4 learned Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore, appears to have recorded the confession statement of P.W.I on 3. 1994, with the result the prosecution has filed a petition before the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, to take P.W.I Mohankumar as an approver. After being satisfied that the confession statement recorded already by P.W. 14 was voluntarily given by P.W.I P.W. 15 has given tender of pardon to P.W. 1 and thus, after having been fulfilled every procedural mandate, the accused Mohankumar who was examined as P.W. 1 was taken as an approver. Thus, since one accused died after the commission of offence pending committal proceedings and another became an approver, the sole accused in this case happened to be one Muralidharan, who is the revision petitioner herein.

5. The case above referred to seems to have been listed for trial on 13. 1996 and 13. 1996. On 13. 1996 itself thirteen witnesses on behalf of the prosecution were examined as P.Ws.l to 13