JUDGMENT 1. - -The instant revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.4.2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Merta, framing charges against the petitioner for offence under sections 368 and 216 Indian Penal Code. 2. Before I proceed to deal with the merits of the case, I may consider the explanation submitted by the learned Special Judge in compliance of directions of this Court dated 9.3.2004. It was brought to the notice of this Court that despite interim order dated 29.4.2003, the learned Special Judge has proceeded with the trial and, as such, his explanation was called-for. I have perused the explanation given by the learned Special Judge. It appears that the learned Special Judge has misconstrued the' interim order of this Court dated 29.4.2003. This may be a bona fide misunderstanding. It is made clear that whenever notices are issued for a certain period and interim relief is granted by using the word "meanwhile", it does not expire with the period within which the notices are required to be served. The interim relief can be said to be for a limited period only when the Court by a specific order so specifies. Otherwise the interim order is to continue unless the same is vacated by a specific order. In this regard, reference be made to a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1983 WLN (UC) 301. 3. Reverting to merits of the case the learned Special Judge himself has observed in para 6 of the order that Ms. Sangeeta has not impleaded the petitioner in her statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 Criminal Procedure Code However, the learned Special. Judge has proceeded to frame charge against the petitioner on the basis of an affidavit dated 17.4.2002 alleged to have been filed by Ms. Sangeeta during investigation. The learned Special Judge has committed a manifest error in proceeding to frame charge against the petitioner on the basis of an affidavit. Learned Special Judge ought to have confined himself only upto the consideration of material collected by the police during investigation. If any affidavit was filed by Ms. Sangeeta, it was for the police to further investigate the matter on the basis of such affidavit including recording of statement of Ms. Sangeeta. Learned Special Judge ought to have confined himself only upto the consideration of material collected by the police during investigation. If any affidavit was filed by Ms. Sangeeta, it was for the police to further investigate the matter on the basis of such affidavit including recording of statement of Ms. Sangeeta. Excluding the affidavit, there is nothing worth the name against the petitioner to put him to trial for the, offence under sections 368 and 216 Indian Penal Code. No useful purpose is going to be served by continuing the proceedings against the petitioner, when Ms. Sangeeta has not said even a single word against the petitioner in her statements under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. 4. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order of the learned Special Judge dated 17.4.2003 is quashed and set aside, so far as it relates to framing of charge for the offence under sections 368 and 216 Indian Penal Code. The trial against other accused-Mohd. Rafeeque shall continue.Petition allowed. *******