ORDER : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the records. The petitioner was arrayed as accused No.2 in Spl. Case (Elect) No.1/2012 on the file of Prl. Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, subsequently accused Nos.2 to 4 were split up from the said case and separate cases were registered as they were absconding at that particular point of time. It is seen from the records that a special case has been registered against accused Nos.2 to 4 in Spl. Case No.33/2014 and the trial has been set down for securing the presence of the accused. At this juncture, the present petition is filed. 2. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that earlier original case filed against accused Nos.1 to 4 has been proceeded against accused No.1, after splitting up accused Nos.2 to 4 from the array of accused. In Spl. Case (Elect) No.1/2012 accused No.1 has been acquitted by the trial Court by giving benefit of doubt and also as the complainant himself has not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings against him on the ground of parity, as the co-accused has been acquitted of the offence under Section 136 (1) (a) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. 3. It is seen from the records that the State of Karnataka through PSI Madikeri Rural Police Station laid a charge sheet against the petitioner and other co-accused persons, registering a case against them in Crime No.91/2007 for the offences under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code and also under Section 136 of the Indian Electricity Act. After filing of the charge sheet, accused were committed to the Special Court and a case has been registered in Spl. Case (Elect) No.1/2012. 4. As I have noted that accused No.1 was tried in the said case by splitting up accused Nos.2 to 4. After filing of the charge sheet, accused were committed to the Special Court and a case has been registered in Spl. Case (Elect) No.1/2012. 4. As I have noted that accused No.1 was tried in the said case by splitting up accused Nos.2 to 4. The learned Sessions Judge has framed charges in the said case including accused Nos.2 to 4 stating that, whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 to 4 have dishonestly removed the bundles of electric wires belonging to C.W.1 – K.Ananda Poojari, an Electric Contractor, which was kept in the land of C.W.2 and carried away the same in a Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No. KA19MK1818, thereby accused No.1 has committed an offence of theft along with other co-accused persons. 5. The above said allegations and also the charge framed against accused No.1 discloses that the allegations against all accused persons are one and the same and are inseparable in nature. In this background, it is further seen that the trial Court has recorded the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 14 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.23 and also the material objects 1 and 2. After appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has arrived at a conclusion that, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused No.1 beyond reasonable doubt. 6. The reason adverted to by the trial Court is also very curious to be noted, that, at paragraph No.52 of the judgment, the trial Court has observed that P.W.1 – Ananda Poojari himself has turned hostile to the prosecution by giving a go-bye to his complaint. He did not identify any of the accused persons, and also pleaded his ignorance as to the place from where the Police have seized the material objects, which are marked before the Court. The other witnesses are also not significant as observed by the trial Court and the complainant himself has turned hostile, which has broken the backbone of the prosecution. 7. On careful hearing of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, it is clear that said judgment of acquittal passed in Spl. Case (Elect) No.1/2012 has not been subjected to any appeal. 8. Considering the overall oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has passed the judgment of acquittal insofar as accused No.1 is concerned. 9. Case (Elect) No.1/2012 has not been subjected to any appeal. 8. Considering the overall oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has passed the judgment of acquittal insofar as accused No.1 is concerned. 9. As I have noted, the allegations made against this petitioner and other acquitted accused are similar in nature and inseparable, the evidence let in by the prosecution, if it is insufficient to prove charge against one of the accused, by no stretch of imagination, the same will become sufficient insofar as this petitioner is concerned. Under the above said circumstance, I do not find any strong reason to continue the proceeding against the petitioner/accused No.2. 10. In this regard, it is proper to rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Akhilesh Singh reported in AIR 2005 SC 268 , wherein the Apex Court has observed that: (A) Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), S.482 – Quashing of charge and discharge of co-accused – Validity – Offence of criminal conspiracy and murder – Main accused who had alleged to have hatched conspiracy and who had motive to kill deceased was already discharged – That matter had attained finality – Discharge of co-accused by High Court by holding that no purpose would be served in further proceeding with case against co-accused – Held, proper. (Para 5) (B) Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), S.482 – Quashing of charge and discharge of co-accused – Offence of criminal conspiracy and murder – Order of discharge passed against main accused attaining finality – - thereafter approached High Court under S.482 – Delay condoned and order quashing charge passed by High Court – Held, power exercised by High Court did not suffer from any illegality or perversity. (Para 6) 11. In view of the above said decision, when once the co-accused is acquitted on the same allegation, the same benefit has to be given even to the remaining accused. Therefore, in this particular case, if such principle is applied, the petitioner is also entitled for the same benefit of acquittal as recorded by the trial Court in Spl.Case (Elect) No.1/2012. 12. Therefore, in this particular case, if such principle is applied, the petitioner is also entitled for the same benefit of acquittal as recorded by the trial Court in Spl.Case (Elect) No.1/2012. 12. If that being so, the proceedings in Spl.Case No.33/2014 registered against the petitioner and other accused persons for the offence under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code and also under Section 136 (1) (a) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, deserves to be quashed. Hence, the following ORDER (i) Petition is allowed. (ii) Proceedings in Spl.Case No.33/2014 for the offence under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code and also under Section 136 (1) (a) of Indian Electricity Act on the file of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri and all further proceedings are hereby quashed, so for it relates to petitioner is concerned.