THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4896 of 2009 DATED: 10.02.2011 BETWEEEN: Mohd. Sayeed @ Sayeed, S/o. Mohd.Azeem … Petitioner/Accused No.9 AND 1. State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor & another …Respondent/Complainant HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4896 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner/A9 is accused of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452, 324, 354, 427/149 IPC in S.C.No.216 of 2008 on the file of the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad along with others. Since A9, who after obtaining bail, was absconding, the case against A9 was separated as S.C.No.216 of 2008 and the main case S.C.No.268 of 2007 was proceeded with against A1 to A6, A8, A10 to A12 and A14. After trial, in which PW’s 1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked, the lower Court passed Judgment in S.C.No.268 of 2007 on 05.08.2008 acquitting all the accused, who faced trial. During trial, the crucial witnesses namely PWs 1 to 4 turned hostile to the prosecution and denied that they having given Exs. P2 to P5 respective statements to the Police under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. 2. Therefore, it is contended by the petitioners counsel that, no purpose will be served even if the trial is proceeded with against the petitioner/A9 in the split up case. I agree with the contention of the petitioners counsel. It would be sheer waste of time and public exchequer, if trial is allowed to go on in the split up case against A9. 3. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing proceedings in S.C.No.216 of 2008 on the file of the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad insofar as the petitioner/A9 is concerned. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 10.02.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL CRIMINAL PETITION No.4896 of 2009 DATED: 10.02.2011 Ysk