ORDER Verma, J. -- 1. This criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of CrPC is directed against order passed by learned 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Session Trial No.197/2013 dated 15.9.2014. 2. The relevant facts for disposal of this revision are that one Vinod Yadav lodged a complaint before Police Station Mahakal, District Ujjain which was registered as Crime No.558/2005 under sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 327 of IPC. After charge-sheet was filed, it was committed to the Court of sessions and the trial was held by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Session Trial No.16/2006 in the judgment delivered on 29.4.2008. The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed in para 17 of the judgment as under :- ^^17- bl rF; izdj.k esa mijksDr vk/kkjksa ij ;g Li”V gS fd bl izdj.k esa ;g Li”V :i ls nf’kZr gqvk gS fd okLro esa izdj.k esa lk{kh fouksn ;kno] jes’k iztkir vkSj jes’k e.Mksj ds }kjk U;k;ky; esa tkucw>dj vlR; dFku fd, x, gSa ;k muds }kjk iwoZ esa vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo#) vlR; fjiksVZ ntZ djkbZ xbZ ;k ml laaca/k esa vius vlR; ‘kiFk i= izLrqr fd, x,A vr% izdj.k dh bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, bu rhuksa lkf{k;ksa ds fo#) U;k;ky; esa feF;k lk{; izLrqr djus ;k {kfr dkfjr djus ds vk’k; ls vijk/k dk feF;k vkjksi yxk, tkus dk vijk/k fd;k tkuk izFken`”V~;k nf’kZr gksrk gSA vr% bl laca/k esa bu lk{khx.k ds fo#) /kkjk 191] 192] 195 ,oa 211 Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk ds vijk/kksa esa fopkj.k fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr nf’kZr gksrk gSA vr% bl fu.kZ; dh izfr ds lkFk bu lk{khx.k ds fo#) mfpr dk;Zokgh ds fy, eq[; U;kf;d n.Mkf/kdkjh dks ifjokn i= izsf”kr fd;k tk,A** 3. In pursuance of this observation a complaint was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate which was again committed to the Court of Session under sections 191, 192, 195 and 211 IPC by the impugned order dated 16.4.2013, the learned Additional Sessions Judge ordered that charges under sections 193, 192/211 IPC on accused Vinod Yadav, under sections 193 and 195 IPC on accused Ramesh s/o Budhichand and section 193 IPC against accused Ramesh s/o Onkarlal be framed. 4. Aggrieved by this order, this present application was filed on the ground that no opportunity was granted by the Court to them for hearing. 4. Aggrieved by this order, this present application was filed on the ground that no opportunity was granted by the Court to them for hearing. No affidavit of Ramesh Kumar Prajapat was on record and presence of Ramesh Mandore was found by the trial Judge only on the basis of statements of other witnesses. Similarly, accused Vinod stated in his Court statement that he signed on blank papers and he was ont in position to read what was written on the paper due to murder of his brother still his statement was held to be false by the trial Judge. 5. I have gone through the impugned order, I find that there is no irregularity committed by the learned trial Judge. After goind through the statement and evidence produced by the prosecution and defence in the case, the trial Judge inferred in section 17 of the judgment as quoted above. The present accused will get ample opportunity to explain their case in the present trial. There is no irregularity committed by both the Courts below and, therefore, in my considered opinion, this revision is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed and dismissed accordingly. Rajendra Samdani for applicants; Ms. Mamta Shandilya, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.