HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.4863 of 2009 Dated : 23.09.2009 Between : K.Maruthi Prasad ….. Petitioner a n d The State of A.P. ….. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.4863 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri M.V.Raja Raam, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the sole respondent. The petitioner is the sixth accused in C.C.No.301 of 1999 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, Excise Court, Ongole, and later the case against the petitioner was split up and numbered as C.C.No.48 of 2000 as per the docket order of the trial Court dated 16.03.2000. The trial Court proceeded with the trial against the other accused and pronounced a judgment of acquittal on 25.01.2001. The trial Court found that P.W.1 and P.W.6 were treated as hostile and did not support the prosecution and it further noted that even the identity of the first accused was not established while the alleged confession of the second and fourth accused was inadmissible in evidence. The trial Court came to a positive conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish and prove that A.1, A.5 and A.6 were involved in the case though A.6 was in fact not facing trial before it. The said judgment of acquittal is claimed to have become final by the petitioner and even according to the allegations of the prosecution, the involvement of the present petitioner in the alleged offence was on the confession of a co-accused and there was absolutely no other material for impleading the present petitioner in the alleged offence as seen from the copies of the charge sheet and the judgment. The petitioner claims that under such circumstances, the continuance of the criminal proceedings is an abuse of process of law and he also claims innocence of pendency of the case till issuance of a non-bailable warrant against him by the trial Court. Irrespective of the truth or otherwise of the claims of innocence of the petitioner either of the offence or of the criminal proceedings, the fact remains that except the alleged retracted confession of the co- accused, there is no other material to link the petitioner with the alleged offence and that a Court of competent jurisdiction after a trial on merits found the prosecution to have failed in establishing its case against the accused tried by it and also against the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the continuance of the criminal proceedings, even if not amounting to an abuse of process of law, appear to be not called for as such continuance will be a futile exercise with absolutely no possibility for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the petitioner. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court should, therefore, be invoked to put an end to the long pending case. Therefore, further proceedings in C.C.No.48 of 2000 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, Excise Court, Ongole, against the petitioner are quashed. The criminal petition is allowed. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 23rd September, 2009 SUR