JUDGMENT

Viney Mittal, J. (Oral) - The grievance made by the petitioner in this case is against the order dated August 26, 2000.

2. An application was filed by the petitioner before the learned trial Court to separate his trial from the other accused. It was claimed that he was a senior citizen and would face harassment for a long time. The aforesaid prayer made by the petitioner was declined by the learned trial Judge vide the impugned order.

3. Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that in fact, the principal accused in the case was already declared as Proclaimed Offender. On that basis, the learned counsel has relied upon the provisions of Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to contend that in that event, the trial against the petitioner and other persons, who are available, could have been continued.

4. From a perusal of the order dated August 26, 2000, I do not find that the aforesaid fact was even argued before the learned trial Judge. Accordingly, there is no justification to set aside the aforesaid order and the present petition is dismissed.

5. However, if the petitioner moves an appropriate application before the learned trial Judg