JUDGMENT MRINAL KANTI SINHA, J. 1. HEARD learned Advocates for the parties. 2. LEARNED Advocate for the petitioner or applicant submits that this matter is tagged with CRR No. 3114 of 2008, but there is no order to that effect and the impugned order has not been passed against the present applicant. Learned Advocate for the O.P. No. 1 also submits that the impugned order has not been passed against the present applicant. 3. LEARNED Advocate for the O.P. No. 2 submits that he has nothing to say in this regard and necessary order may be passed. 4. AS it appears that there is no specific order for hearing this matter together with CRR No. 3114 of 2008, but the record of this matter has been kept with CRR 3114 of 2008, so this matter is also being taken up for hearing separately and is being disposed of separately. This Revisional Application has been directed against order No. 31 dated 27.6.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, 3rd Court, Barasat, North 24 Parganas in Special case No. 15 of 2005 arising out of crime No. RC/36/2002 dated 30.12.2002 under Sections 120(B)/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(1) (d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act with the prayer for setting aside the impugned order. 5. IT is the case of the petitioner or applicant that he was falsely implicated in the case bearing crime No. RC/26/2002 dated 30.12.2002 on the false allegation that one Uday Shankar Bhattacharyya while posted and functioning as Senior Accounts Officer (Cash) in the office of the General Manager (Telecom) at 135A, B.R.B. Bose Road, Kolkata, entered into a criminal conspiracy with some other unknown officials and Damodar Bera, and submitting false and fabricated work orders cheated BSNL to the tune of Rs.80,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Lakhs) and thereby said Damodar Bera wrongfully obtained Rs.80,00,000/- without performing any job. The present applicants name transpired in the charge sheet. After hearing the respective parties the learned Special Judge, 3rd Court, Barasat, North 24 Parganas, has rejected the application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by another accused namely Uday Shankar Bhattacharyya and there is no sufficient material to frame charge against the present applicant. The present applicants name transpired in the charge sheet. After hearing the respective parties the learned Special Judge, 3rd Court, Barasat, North 24 Parganas, has rejected the application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by another accused namely Uday Shankar Bhattacharyya and there is no sufficient material to frame charge against the present applicant. The learned Court below has caused a total miscarriage of justice by not considering the case of the applicant and so the impugned order should be set aside. 6. BUT it appears from the photostat certified copy of special case No. 15 of 2005 of the Court of learned Additional District Judge at Barasat, which has been filed by the applicant along with his Revisional Application, that the impugned order has been made against Uday Shankar Bhattacharyya only, who has alone been cited as accused in the said certified copy of judgment, and there is no order passed on any application under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by any other accused, far to speak of the present applicant, nor anything has been produced to show that the present applicant himself filed any application under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for his discharge and the said application was rejected. Attention of the learned Advocates of the present applicant as well as the O.P. was drawn in this regard, but no satisfactory explanation could be given by the learned Advocate for the applicant. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate for the applicant that the certified copy of order filed in this matter as the impugned order, was not passed against the present applicant. So necessary order may be passed in that regard. On the other hand learned Advocate for the O.P. No. 1 has submitted that as there is no specific order in the name of the present applicant as an accused so, there is no question of his being aggrieved by any order of the learned Court below, and as such the present applicant had no necessity to file any such Revisional Application and the present Revisional Application may be dismissed as infructuous. 7. IT is to be considered in this matter whether such Revisional Application of the Applicant is justified or not. 8. 7. IT is to be considered in this matter whether such Revisional Application of the Applicant is justified or not. 8. IT appears from the record that the Photostat certified copy of the impugned order filed by the applicant in this matter bears no name of present applicant as an accused, neither it has been mentioned in the title page that the said order has been passed against him as an accused, nor in the said order it has been mentioned that the said order has been passed against the present applicant as an accused. When apparently no order has specifically been passed against the present applicant as an accused, then he had no occasion to file the present Revisional Application as there was no question of his being aggrieved by any order of the learned Court below. Having regard to all these circumstances it appears that the present Revisional Application filed by the applicant appears to be infructuous or redundant and that is not at all justified. Accordingly, the present Revisional Application should be dismissed for the ends of justice. The Revisional Application No. 3138 of 2008 stands dismissed accordingly. 9. URGENT Photostat certified copy, if applied for, be handed over to the parties as early as possible.