The State is in revision challenging the order passed by the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Sessions Case No.238 of 2006 dated 14.10.2015, whereby the learned Sessions Judge closed the case against the respondents/accused, against whom a split-up charge sheet was filed alleging offences punishable under Sections 489-A, 489-B, 489-C read with Section 120-B of IPC.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of present revision petition is that a split up case in S.C. No.238/2006 on the file of Court of Sessions Judge, Belgaum arising out of the main S.C. No.167/1996 was filed against the accused respondents arraigned as accused Nos.2, 4, 5 and 7 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 489-A, 489-B, 489-C read with Section 120-B of I.P.C. Since the said accused were absconding, NBW came to be issued on several occasions and inspite of sufficient time granted to secure their presence and since they were not secured, proclamation and attachment warrants as per Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. came to be ordered. The proclamation issued under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. was duly published. Fresh attachment warrant also came to be issued against the respondents. Fresh proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and warrant under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. to attach the movables of the accused was also ordered and the proclamation was duly published. However, inspite of taking such coercive steps there was no progress in the case.

3. The learned Sessions Judge after considering that the case is still pending at the stage of proclamation and that in main S.C. No.167/1996 the accused therein were already acquitted by judgment dated 19.08.2015, proceeded to pass an order closing the case against accused respondents herein relying on the decisions rendered by this Court in the case of Mohammed Ilias v. State of Karnataka reported in 2001 (3) Kar.L.J. 551 and Devaraju v. State of Karnataka reported in 2011(1) KCCR 646.

4. The learned Additional S.P.P. appearing for the petitioner/State, Sri V. M. Banakar contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed a grave error in closing the case without giving opportunity to the prosecution to lead evidence under Section 299 of Cr.P.C. after completion of the procedure under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. He submits that the impugned order is passed without following the due procedure contemplated under Chapter-IV of The Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, 1968 and without assigning any reasons the trial Court has abruptly closed the case which is erroneous and not sustainable in law and accordingly he seeks to allow the petition.

5. The perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge goes to show that the same was passed relying on two decisions of this Court, as noted supra. The learned Sessions Judge after relying on the afore stated decisions observed that even if the accused are brought before the Court, the Court has to rely upon the same evidence recorded in the main case and even if the accused are secured the Court has to pronounce the judgment of acquittal.

6. It is relevant to see that this Court in the case of Mohammed Ilias (supra) while considering the case of an absconding accused held that since evidence against all accused persons is common, indivisible and inseparable, absconder who has been brought to trial after acquittal of co-accused cannot also be convicted on the basis of same evidence and hence quashed the proceedings.

7. In the case of Devaraju v. State of Karnataka (supra) in similar circumstances after considering that the proceeding against the petitioner therein shall serve no useful purpose as the material witnesses for the prosecution had turned hostile, quashed the proceedings.

8. The learned Sessions Judge has failed to see that this Court while exercising its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in a petition filed by the accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. quashed the proceedings against the abs