Short Note : By this revision, the applicant-State of M.P. seeks to challenge the order made by the trial Court refusing permission to withdraw the case against some of the accused persons while granting such permission for withdrawal of the case against two accused persons only permission for the withdrawal of the entire case against all the accused persons is sought by the State. Held : On perusal of the record, I find that the contention of the State is well founded. The evidence collected during investigation is undoubtedly meagre and there is no possibility of connecting any accused person with the crime. The prosecution witnesses have specifically stated before the Court that they could not see the face of any culprit at the time of occurrence and as such they were unable to identify any of them in the Court also. The witnesses have also explained the reasons for the same. They had stated that due to dazzling torch light, it became impossible to see the faces of the culprits. They further stated that the culprits had covered their faces by black pieces of cloth (Naqab) and mufflers. Repeated questions were put to the witnesses to ascertain whether they were in a position to identify any accused. The witnesses specifically expressed their inability to do so, for the reasons stated above. Under these circumstances, even no test identification parade was held during the course of investigation. There is no recovery of property at the instance of the accused except the seizure of truck and one iron rod used as lever found on spot. Thus, there being neither any possibility of identification of the accused, nor there being any recovery of property, it is apparent that no useful purpose is to be served by insisting on the continuance of the prosecution awaiting arrest of the absconding accused. 2. It is true that no hard and fast rule can be applied on the question of propriety of the grant of permission to withdraw a prosecution. There cannot be defined categories of cases in which permission should be granted or refused. It will always depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, withdrawal is sought not on the ground of expediency to proceed with the case on extraneous consideration. Withdrawal is sought on the ground that the evidence collected during the investigation was meagre. It will always depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, withdrawal is sought not on the ground of expediency to proceed with the case on extraneous consideration. Withdrawal is sought on the ground that the evidence collected during the investigation was meagre. The learned Sessions Judge was also of the same opinion and accordingly granted permission in respect of the two accused persons. He, however, refused permission under an expectation of the possibility of the remaining accused persons being identified, if produced before the Court. In the facts and circumstances discussed above, this expectation is apparently without any foundation. Revision allowed.