Goutam Bhaduri, J.

1. This is an appeal against the order dated 14/03/2013 whereby the appellant/accused No. 15 is aggrieved by the para 33 of order. Para 33 is reproduced hereunder:

^^¼33½ tIr’kqnk gkbZMªk dzsu eukst dqekj feJk ds lqiqnZuekuksa ij gS] eks-lk- panu ‘kekZ ds lqiqnZukesa ij gS ,oa lsUVªksdkj nhyhi lkMaxh ds lqiqnZukesa ij gS blfy;s buds lqiqnZukesa ij gh jgsxhA ekeys esa tIr lHkh laifRr;ksa dk bl fu.kZ; }kjk fujkdj.k ugha fd;k tk jgk gS] D;ksafd vU; vijk/khx.k Qjkjk gSA Qjkj vijkf/k;ksa ds fu.kZ; ds le; gh tIr laifRr;ksa dk fujkdkj.k fd;k tkosxkA**

The brief facts of the case is that Sessions Trial No. 95/2011 i.e. the State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Jairam and 18 others was tried under Section 395, 397, 120-B, 342 IPC that offence were committed by the 18 accused. In the said sessions case, the 15 accused were tried who were available. The remaining 3 accused could not be tried. After the trial the 15 accused, who were tried in the Sessions trial were acquitted, while remaining 3 accused continued to be absconded. Therefore, the learned court below while passing the final order at the conclusion of the trial reserved/restrained to pass any order on the seized maruti