Sen, J.—The question involved in this appeal by special leave is whether the High Court of Karnataka was justified in directing the Sessions Judge, Bidar to proceed with the trial of Sessions Case No. 23 of 1984 insofar as it relates to the respondent Narsa Reddy and one Vaijinath, accused No. 2, arraigned, for having committed alleged offences punishable under sections 302 and 201 both read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, I860 and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. While issuing notice, we were not satisfied about the legality and propriety of the order passed by the learned Single Judge which had the effect of splitting up of the trial although the prosecution case against the accused arose out of the same incident and the evidence to be led by the prosecution against them was more or less common. It also seemed to us that if the order passed by the learned Single Judge were to be implemented, the learned Sessions Judge would be constrained to proceed against the respondent and accused No. 2 Vaijinath and thereby the very object of directing de now trial would be frustrated. At the hearing, no one appeared for the respondent and therefore we