JUDGMENT This Cr. Misc. Petition has been filed against the order dated 24.1.2001 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro in connection with Cr. Revision No. 44 of 2000 and also against the order dated 22.5.2000 passed by the then Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Shri K.M. Pandey in connection with C.P. Case No. 13/1996 whereby the learned Magistrate has given opportunity to the complainant to deposit Rs. 200/- as cost for issuance of ‘Dasti’ summon against witness Binod Kumar. 2. The brief facts which appear from the Complaint is that the complainant had purchased ‘Terra-Cobra Scrapper Machine’ from D.V.C. Since the machine was not in order, the complainant requested the authorities of D.V.C. to have a watch on the machine which was removed to ‘Foot-ball’ ground adjacent to D.V.C. premises. The security personnel of D.V.C. were directed to watch whereas the complainant had also deputed one of his staff for the security and safety of said machine. On 06.10.1994 several parts of said ‘Terra-Cobra Scrapper Machine’ were cut and loaded on Trucks by using gas cutter on the instruction of accused persons. Staff of the complainant informed about the dismantling of the machine whereafter the complainant herself visited the spot on 7.10.1994 and she found that said ‘Terra-Cobra Scrapper Machine’ was totally dismantled and damaged at the instance of accused persons. The front tyres, bearing, brass bushes were cut with the help of gas cutter and loaded on two Trucks. She immediately rushed to the concerned police station and informed the matter. The Officer-in-Charge visited the place and seized the Truck with cut parts of the said machine and instituted ‘Sanha’. Thereafter, the complainant had approached the accused persons who are the officials of the D.V.C. For compensation against the pilferage and damage of machine purchased by her, no heed was paid though complaint was made, as a result, she lodged a complaint case in the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat vide C.P. Case No. 13/1996 in which enquiry was held and cognizance was taken. 3. Against the said order, discharge petition filed by the petitioners was rejected. In Cr. 3. Against the said order, discharge petition filed by the petitioners was rejected. In Cr. Revision No. 18/1999 vide order dated 19.1.2000 the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro has pleased to allow the Revision Application with observation:- “the learned court-below shall reconsider the entire evidence afresh after allowing the complainant to adduce any further evidence if she chooses to do so and record a fresh order accordingly.” 4. After the case was remanded back to the court-below, the complainant filed a petition for issuance of summon against witness Binod Kumar and also prayed to examine other witness who was not cited as witness in the complaint. The learned court-below vide order dated 22.5.2000 allowed the petition to the extent that witness Binod Kumar, who is cited as witness in the complaint can be summoned and ‘Dasti’ summon can also be issued on payment of cost of Rs. 200/- but the learned court did not consider the issuance of summon against that witness, who was not cited as a witness in the complaint and it was considered as prematured prayer. 5. The petitioners preferred Cr. Revision No. 44/2000 against the said order dated 22.5.2000 passed in Complaint Case No. 13/1996 before the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Cr. Revision No. 44 of 2000. After granting hearing to the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the Revision Application vide order dated 24.1.2001 and hence this Cr. Misc. Petition. 6. It is submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has wrongly considered the spirit of order passed in Cr. Revision No. 18/1999. It was an incorrect observation that after remand of the case, it reached to the stage of Section 244 Cr.P.C. and the complainant shall be at liberty to adduce further evidence if she so chooses. 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State and respondent no.2 have opposed the prayer and submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly dismissed the Cr. Revision No. 44 of 2000. Since the petitioners have not preferred any criminal writ against the order dated 19.1.2000 passed in Cr. Revision No. 18 of 1999, there was no occasion for them to raise same issue in the next Revision Application because the order dated 22.5.2000 was the consequence arisen in compliance of the order passed in Cr. Revision No. 18 of 1999. 7. Since the petitioners have not preferred any criminal writ against the order dated 19.1.2000 passed in Cr. Revision No. 18 of 1999, there was no occasion for them to raise same issue in the next Revision Application because the order dated 22.5.2000 was the consequence arisen in compliance of the order passed in Cr. Revision No. 18 of 1999. 7. I have gone through the orders passed in both the Cr. Revision No.18 of 1999 and Cr. Revision No. 44 of 2000. I have also perused the order dated 22.5.2000 passed in Complaint Case No. 13 of 1996. It is rightly submitted by the Counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties that the learned Magistrate has passed the order dated 22.5.2000 in consequent to the directions given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Cr. Revision No. 18 of 1999. It is apparent that the petitioners have not challenged any part of the order dated 19.1.2000 passed in Cr. Revision No. 18/1999 by which the case was remanded back to the court concerned giving complainant a liberty to adduce evidence as per her wish. In view of the directions so given in the said Cr. Revision, the Complainant wanted to examine not only remaining witness cited in the complaint but also the witnesses who are acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. To avail a right conferred on her vide order dated 19.1.2000 passed in Cr. Revision No. 18 of 1999, the complainant had filed a petition before the learned Magistrate for issuance of summon against witness on 22.5.2000. I do agree with the observations made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge made in the order dated 24.1.2000 passed in Cr. Revision No. 44 of 2000 that remand of the case giving liberty to the complainant to adduce her evidence has put the case within the purview of Section 244 Cr.P.C. again. In view of the discussion and the material available on record, I do not find merit in this Cr. Misc. and the same stands dismissed giving liberty to the petitioners to raise all their grievances and legal points at the stage of framing of charge. 8. Communicate the copy of this order through ‘FAX’ to the court concerned with a direction that the court in seisin of case record of Complaint Case shall proceed further to expedite the trial at the earliest opportunities available.