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 Judg