JUDGMENT A. H. JOSHI, J.: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. In our order dated 30.10.2012, we had recorded observations as follows: "4. We call upon the learned APP the question as to propriety of conducting the separated trial against the applicant/accused in the background of fact finding done by the Sessions Court in Sessions Case No.110/2009 that the death-subject matter to be homicidal is not proved, particularly when no other evidence may nor can be tendered. " 3. Learned APP was called upon to respond and make submissions on aforesaid observations. 4. Learned APP addressed the Court, summary whereof is as follows: (i) Absconding accused cannot take benefit of judgment of acquittal in favour of other accused, and (ii) He will have to face the trial whenever he is arrested. 5. Insofar as propositions advanced by learned APP are concerned, there is no dispute or doubt about the same. 6. The finding recorded by the trial court in Sessions Case No.110 of 2009 holding that the death-subject matter, allegedly caused by the accused who were tried along with absconding accused (present petitioner) was not homicidal, cannot be passively looked at. 7. The prosecution does not dispute that the set of witnesses relied upon by it at the time of trial and those now would be examined, is the same. 8. There is nothing on record to persuade us as to the possibility of recording a different finding of fact on the same set of evidence. 9. Therefore, this court cannot blindly let present petitioner be sent for trial which would be an empty formality. 10. We are, therefore, satisfied that the finding of fact that the death-subject matter is not homicidal is required to be adhered to even insofar as present applicant is concerned, and the charge-sheet emerging from Crime No. 232 of 2008 registered with MIDC Police Station, Ahmednagar, for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 189, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, read with Section 4(25) of the Arms Act and Sections 37 (1)(3) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act, and consequent separated sessions trial deserves to be quashed and set aside. 11. We, accordingly, make the rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). Application stands disposed of.