ORDER: This revision has been filed by the petitioner, fourth accused namely, Mohan in S.C.No.1 of 1993 on the file of the Sessions Court, Thiruvannamalai against the order of dismissal passed by the Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai in Crl.M.P.No.4505 of 2003 in S.C.No.1 of 1993 on 15.3.2004, whereby the petitioner prayed for denova enquiry of the Magistrate as if, the examination of material witnesses without his counsel is illegal and unjust in the light of Secs.273 and 304, Crl.P.C. 2. However, the said Crl.M.P.No.4505 of 2003 has been strongly contested by the prosecution by saying that the said petition is not at all maintainable and the allegations stated in support of that petition are not at all correct and true and that the said petition itself is nothing but an attempt to delay the progress of the trial of the sessions case to the maximum possible and in a way to cause inconvenience to other connected accused, who are facing the trial under the same sessions case and particularly when the first accused is a Srilanka citzen and case is pending from the year 1993. 3. I have gone through the order of the Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai carefully and also heard the arguments of the petitioner’s counsel as well as the Government Advocate (Criminal Side) in detail. The following material factors have to be taken into account before analysing the maintainability of the petition in Crl.M.P.No.4505 of 2003 or otherwise and its genuineness. As per the charge sheet filed by the prosecution in this case, the petitioner along with other accused is said to have committed offence under Secs.302 (3 counts), 307 (4 counts), 419, 457, 394, 396 read with 392 and 353, I.P.C., apart from Secs.325(1)(a) and 27(2) and (3) of Arms Act. The sessions case is pending from 1993. The first accused is the Srilanka citizen. So far 46 witnesses have been examined for the prosecution. 4. The main and the substantial grounds alleged in this revision petition are to the effect that the order of dismissal in the petition in Crl.M.P.No.4505 of 2003 is unjustified and illegal in the light of Secs.273 and 304, Crl.P.C. and that the examination of witnesses without the counsel also is illegal and that the Sessions Court failed to provide legal assistance inasmuch as he is an indigent person and coolly by profession and no means for him to engage any counsel. 5. 5. Originally, charge sheet was filed against 12 accused and the petitioner is the fourth accused in the sessions case. After committal to the Sessions Court, 12th accused namely, Murthy alias Periyasamy died and accused Nos.9 to 11 were absconding and so case against them was split up and then again accused Nos.2,3 and 8 absconded and a case against them also was split up and then 7th accused died and therefore, lastly the S.C.No.1 of 1993 now is pending against accused Nos.1,4,5 and 6 alone. Totally 46 witnesses have been examined for prosecution so far and whileso, the petitioner/fourth accused move this Court for transfer of the said S.C.No.1 of 1993 to some other Court and stay was granted by this Court and lastly the transfer petition was dismissed on 22.7.2002. Thereafter the case was pending for trial before Additional District Judge, Thiruvannamalai. Whileso, Crl.M.P.No.4505 of 2003 was filed for denova trial on 9.9.2003 as if, he is an indigent person and he has no means to engage a counsel and examination of the witnesses in the absence of his counsel and the witnesses have not been cross-examined by him and thereby denova trial is required. However, the trial Court namely, Sessions Court, Thriuvannamalai has pointed out that the petitioner on previous occasion has filed a petition under Sec.311, Crl.P.C. for recalling P.Ws.1 to 3 and 23 alone for cross-examination by saying that those witnesses alone are implicating the petitioner in the offence and the said application numbered as Crl.M.P.No.32 of 2003 and it has been allowed on 10.3.2003 itself and that thereafter there was no progress in the ses-sions case and due to redesignation of the post of Chief Judicial Magistrate into the Civil Judge (Senior Division), the said sessions case has been withdrawn from the C.J.M. Court and transferred to sessions court and whileso, this petition has been filed seeking for denova trial. Moreover, the Sessions Judge has pointed out that the petitioner cannot be construed as indigent person and in fact, in spite of offer made by the Court for engaging free legal aid counsel, the petitioner refused to accept the same and further in fact, the petitioner has been engaging the counsel of his choice and filing petition after petition before the Sessions Court as well as the High Court by engaging the counsel of his choice. Further he has pointed out that the petitioner has not taken any steps to cross-examine P.Ws.1 to 3 and 23, even though his request on this aspect was granted in Crl.M.P.No.32 of 2003 on 10.3.2003 itself and that without deligently coming forward to cross-examine the said witnesses has chosen to file this petition on 9.9.203 for denova trial as if there is illegality and he has no means to engage a counsel. He has also pointed out that the other accused facing the trial are being unnecessarily harassed by the conduct of this petitioner, by non-co-operating for the progress of the trial. 6. However counsel appearing for the petitioner cited a ruling in Thagu alias Thyagarajan v. State, 1990 L.W.(Crl.)326 in support of his argument. But the facts of the said ruling are different to the effect that it was a case where sufficient time was not given for the advocate appearing for the accused to prepare the defence and trial was immediately proceeded after appointing the counsel for the accused and thereby it was held therein that Rules 166 and 167, Crl.P.C. were not followed and thereby the trial was held to be vitiated. But the facts and circumstances of this case pertaining to the petitioner herein are different and the said ruling have no application to this case. 7. Another ruling relied on by the petitioner’s counsel in Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachala Pradesh, 1986 S.C.C. (Crl.) 166 in support of his argument. It is also not applicable to the facts of this case, because the facts in the said ruling are different from this case, inasmuch as free legal aid was not provided to the accused in that case and there is no necessity for the accused to make such request and the Court itself has to provide such free legal assistance. But in this case the petitioner herein has gone to the extent of refusing or not accepting the offer of the Court for providing legal assistance to the petitioner has engaged advocates of his own choice not only in the Sessions Court, C.J.M. Court and also High Court for the purpose of filing transfer petition and he has never sought for free legal aid. When that be so, the conduct and means of the petitioner to engage the advocates of his choice, it is too much on the part of the petitioner now to say in this Crl.M.P.No.4505 of 2003 as if, he has no means to engage the counsel. 8. Further the ruling cited by the petitioner’s counsel in Sudarsanam v. State, Deputy Superintendent of Police, 1987 L.W. (Crl.) 419 also has no application, since the facts of that ruling are different from this case. That is a case, where the request of the accused on the ground of engaging another counsel due to the illness of the previous counsel was refused and thereby the examination of witnesses in the absence of the counsel was held unjustified. But in this case, the petitioner is all along present during the course of examination of witnesses and the counsel on record at any time does not appear to have sought for adjournments either for the preparation or for cross-examining the witnesses nor the petitioner does appear to have requested the Court to give time for cross-examination. Therefore, it cannot be construed as if, the Sessions Court has committed illegality in dismissing the Crl.M.P.No.4505 of 2003 and there is violation of procedure or misarriage of justice. On the other hand in my view obviously it is the petitioner, who is not willing to have the completion of trial at an early date and going to file petition after petition with ulterior motive of dragging on the progress of the trial. 9. Therefore, the Secs.273 and 304, Crl.P.C. also cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. The petitioner also does not care about the inconvenience and harassment that may be abused to the other co-accused, who are facing the trial by co-operating for the progress of the trial. In all, I do not find any merit or justification on the part of the petitioner to file this revision petition by saying as if there is illegality or irregularity or violation of procedure or injustice etc., in a way to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court to set aside the order passed by the Sessions Court in the Crl.M.P.No.4505 of 2003. 10. In the result, Criminal Revision case fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, no order is necessary in Crl.M.P.No.7581 of 2004 and the same is closed.