( 1 ) ACCUSED No. 5 in Sessions Case No. 20/1994 on the file of the III Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, is the petitioner-herein. This petition under Section 482, Cr. PC is filed by the petitioner/a. 5 to grant stay of the proceedings against him till the final adjudication against A. 1 to A. 4 for charges under Sections 302 and 392, IPC in Sessions Case No. 20/1994, on the file of the III Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

( 2 ) THE substance of accusation against A. 1 to A. 5 is that A. 1 to A. 4, on 23-2-1993, at about 7. 45 p. m. killed one Haji Mohammed Yakub, at Red Hilla, Hyderabad, a businessman and took away cash of Rs. 1,60,000. 00 from his possession. A-5, the petitioner-herein, harboured A. 1 to A. 4 in his house of Bodabanda, Hyderabad, and shared the booty along with A. 1 to A. 4. A. 1 to A. 4 are charged with offences of robbery and murder punishable under Sections 392 and 302, IPC and A. 5 is charged with the offence of harbouring the offenders and for dishonestly receiving the stolen property, punishable under Sections 212 IPC and 411, IPC.

( 3 ) THE petitioner contends that in order to convict him for an offence under Section 212, IPC, first of all there must be an offender who has to be harboured; that unless and until A. 1 to A. 4 are convicted for the offences under Sections 392 and 302, IPC, "they (A1 to A4) will not become offenders"; the petitioner who is charged with the offence of harbouring u/s. 212, IPC cannot be tried along with A. 1 to A. 4 in Sessions Case No. 20/94; therefore, the trial as against the petitioner/a-5 must be stayed. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision in Chacko v. State, AIR 1951 Tranvancore-Cochin 90 : 1951 (52) Cri LJ 470.

( 4 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor contends that as per Section 223, Cr PC, all persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction can be charged and tried together and therefore the question of staying the trial as against A. 5 for the offence u/s. 212, IPC cannot be ordered.

( 5 ) IT is necessary to note that ingredients which are to be established by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of an accused for an offence under Section 212, IPC. Section 212, IPC reads as follows :"whenever an offence has been committed, whoever harbours or conceals a person whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the offender, with the intention of screening him from legal punishment, Shall, if the offence in punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine, and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine, and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year, and not to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both. . . . . . . . "

( 6 ) A reading of this Section 212, IPC will disclose that 3 things have to be proved by the prosecution, viz. , (i) there must be an offender, and (ii) the offender should have already committed an offence and (iii) the person accused of under this Section should have harboured the offender knowing that he is an offender.

( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that unless and until A. 1 to A. 4 are found guilty of committing the offences under Sections 392 and 302, IPC, they cannot be called as offenders. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner cannot be tried for an offence u/s. 212, IPC simultaneously along with A. 1 to A. 4 in the same sessions case, in which A. 1 to A. 4 are facing trial for offen