Honble Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.—In a case under Sections 395, 412, 307 I.P.C., there were four accused, out of which three were acquitted after trial. The fourth accused was absconding and his trial could not take place alongwith the other accused. When he appeared in Court his Counsel argued before the trial Judge that since the other 3 accused have been acquitted in respect of the same incident, this accused should not be subjected to a trial because the evidence in the case is to be same.

2. The Counsel for the applicant referred to the case of Sanjoo v. State of U.P., 2005 (3) J.I.C. 243, before the trial Judge which the trial Judge has noted in his order. But the trial Judge refused to go alongwith the decision of the High Court and accepted the argument of the Counsel for the State that there are 19 witnesses in the case, while only four were examined at the trial of the other 3 accused, and more evidence can, therefore, be available against this accused. The trial Judge, therefore, decided to proceed with the trial.

3. It is against this order that the accused has come with the petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the impugned order of the Sessions Judge.

4. It is true that more evidence which was not given at the trial of the 3 accused in the case can be available against the fourth accused applicant but if the applicant is convicted it would create an anomaly and the process of Law will be defamed and defiled on the ground that it is sirange justice that for the same incident and for the same facts, the Court is convicting the one person while releasing the others.

5. The confidence of the public in judicial process shall certainly receive a jolt and it would not be in interest of justice, therefore to subject, the applicant to a trial. The larger interest of justice, therefore, demands that no such discrimination should be allowed and the applicant should not, therefore, be subjected to a trial.

6. The impugned order dated 18-1-2007 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor (in S.T. No. 475 of 2006) is set aside.

————