Judgment 1. This petition in revision by the informant petitioner is directed against the order dated 11-7-1994 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali in S. T. No. 190/93, State v. Raj Kumar Singh and others, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the petition (Annexure-3) filed by the informant petitioner. In the said petition (Annexure-3) it had been stated that the record had been split up due to non-appearance of the absconding accused and in order that there may not be any technical difficulty in using the evidence of the witnesses which may be recorded in the case, against the absconder accused it was necessary, as required by Section 299 of the Cr. P. C, that evidence be brought on record regarding the fact that some of the accused were absconding in spite of attachment of their property by police personnel. In the petition, the prayer was to summon the police personael to prove that some of ths accused were absconding in 6pite of attachment of their property. 2. The impugned order (Annexure-4) dated 11-7-1994 shows that the informant petitioner had filed similar petition earlier which had been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the grounds mentioned therein and the informant petitioner had taken time to move this Court against the said order but instead of moving this Court against the said order, the informant petitioner again filed similar petition (Annexure-3) which has been rejected by the impugned order on this very ground. Earlier order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the earlier similar petition filed by the informant petitioner is dated 23-6-1994 and is Annexure-5 to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner on 23-8-1994. The order dated 23-6-1994 shows that the informant petitioner had filed one more petition (Annexure-7 to the second supplementary affidavit) praying therein for passing order under Section 299, Cr. P. C. for recording evidence in absence of the absconding accused so that the evidence so recorded might be used against them when they are apprehended. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected this petition also saying that there is no necessity of passing an order to this effect as there is clear provision of law in this regard. 3. P. C. for recording evidence in absence of the absconding accused so that the evidence so recorded might be used against them when they are apprehended. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected this petition also saying that there is no necessity of passing an order to this effect as there is clear provision of law in this regard. 3. From para 4 of the second supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the informant petitioner, it would appear that the record of absconder accused Srikant Das was separated from the main record as per order dated 10-5-1994. Para 7 of the second supplementary affidavit shows that the record of absconder accused Neta @ Chandradeep Singh and Chandrika Sahni was separated as per order dated 10-8-1994 (Annexure-6) i.e. after passing of the impugned order dated 11-7-1994, A perusal of the orders dated 23-6-1994 and 10-8-1994 shows that the accused Srikant Das, Neta@ Chandradeep Singh and Chandrika Sahni have been declared absconders by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Section 299 of the Cr, P. C. and pointed out that the said section provides for the record of prosecution evidence where the accused is absconding and there is no immediate prospect of arresting him. It was contended by the learned counsel that in order to give jurisdiction to record evidence in accordance with the said section, it must be proved by evidence that the accused has absconded and there is no immediate prospect of arresting him. It was further contended by the learned counsel that a mere perusal of polico report by the Court without recording any evidence does not prove abscondance and it is in view of this that the informant petitioner moved the learned Additional Sessions Judge for summoning the poilce personnel for proving that they had attached the property of the absconding accused and there was no prospect of their arrest in near future. In support of the above contention, the learned counsel referred to the decision of this Court in Emperor v. Baharuddin, AIR 1938 Pat 49, and in Bishwanath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1964 BUR 263. 5. It may be pointed out that the provision of Section 299, Cr. P. C. is an exception to the general rule that evidence has to be taken in the presence of the accused. Before the provision of Section 299, Cr. 5. It may be pointed out that the provision of Section 299, Cr. P. C. is an exception to the general rule that evidence has to be taken in the presence of the accused. Before the provision of Section 299, Cr. P. C. can be availed of, the conditions prescribed must be strictly complied with. Section 299, Cr. P. C. corresponds to old Section 512 with slight changes. In the case of Emperor v. Baharuddin (supra) it has been held that "the depositions of the witnesses examined at the trial of an accused cannot subsequently be used at the trial of an absconding accused if the procedure laid down in Section 512 is not observed. It is not the law that for the purpose of being used under Section 512 the depositions of witnesses must be recorded over again in a separate proceeding. It will suffice if at the commencement of the hearing the prosecutor brings to the notice of the Court the fact that such a person is absconding, examines a witness or witnesses to prove that fact and obtains a direction of the Court that the evidence about to be taken is being taken for the purpose of being used if necessary against the absconding under Section 512 as well as against the person present and under trial." 6. In the case of Bishwanath Singh v. The State of Bihar (supra) it has been held as follows by a division bench of this court :"It will be noticed that the Section 512, Cr. P.C. lays down a special rule of evidence, namely, of recording evidence against an accused in his absence. Therefore, a Court proceeds to record the deposition of a witness under this section, it must be satisfied that the accused is absconding and that there is no immediate prospect of arresting him. This would imply that the Court must have before it some evidence from which it is satisfied that the accused has absconded and that there is no immediate prospect of arresting him." 7. In view of what has been held by their lordships in the aforesaid decisions, there remains no doubt that in order to give jurisdiction to record evidence under Section 299 of the Cr. P. C. it must be proved by evidence that the accused has absconded and there is no immediate prospect of arresting him. 8. In view of what has been held by their lordships in the aforesaid decisions, there remains no doubt that in order to give jurisdiction to record evidence under Section 299 of the Cr. P. C. it must be proved by evidence that the accused has absconded and there is no immediate prospect of arresting him. 8. A perusal of the order dated 23-6-94 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge which has been referred to in the impugned order as earlier order, shows that no witness was examined to prove the factum of obscondance of accused Srikant Das. As mentioned earlier accused Neta @ Chandradeep Singh and Chandrika Sahni were declared absconders by a subsequent order dated 10-8-94 (Annexure-6). A perusal of the order dated 10-8-94 shows that no witness was examined to prove the facts of abscondance of the said two accused. It will also appear from the aforesaid orders dated 23-6-94 and 10-8-94 that no direction by the learned A dditional Sessions Judge was given that the evidence about to be taken in the main record would be used if necessary, against the absconding accused under Section 299, Cr. P. C. as well as against the accused present and under trial. As it appears from the impugned order, the decisions of this Court as reported in A. I. R. 1938 Patna page 49 and 1964, B.L.J.R. page 263 had been referred to on behalf of the informant petitioner but the learned Additional Sessions Judge does not appear to have considered the same at all. Under the circumstances, it is difficult to sustain the impugned order. 9. In the result, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 11-7-94 is hereby set aside. The learned Additional Sessions Judge is hereby directed to provide reasonable opportunity to the prosecution to adduce evidence with regard to the factum of abscondance of the aforesaid three accused and on the basis of the evidence so adduced, if the learned Additional Sessions Judge is satisfied that the aforesaid accused have absconded and there is no immediate prospect of arresting them, he may declare them absconders. If the learned Sessions Judge declares the aforesaid accused absconders he will also think in terms of giving a direction to the effect that the evidence about to be taken in the S. T. No. 190/93 would be taken for the purpose of being used, if necessary against the absconders under Section 299, Cr. P.C. as well as against the accused present and under trial.