JUDGMENT : 1. The prayer in the petition is to quash the S.C.No.606 of 2010 proceedings pending against the petitioner herein, who is A.5, in S.C.No.606 of 2010 on the file of the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, which is from the cognizance order and committal proceedings for the offences punishable under Sections 399, 364A, 511 and 120B read with 149 IPC and Section 25(1)(b) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, out come of Crime No.744 of 2005, dated 21.10.2005, of the CCS, DD, Hyderabad. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/A.5 supra and also the learned Public Prosecutor, representing the State, and perused the material on record. 3. The crime registered supra and from investigation the police filed the charge sheet and P.R.C.No.8 of 2010 was allotted by the learned committal Magistrate in taken cognizance for the offences supra against 12 accused and after committal, only A.1 to A.4, A.6, A.10, A.11 and A.12 faced trial in S.C.No.606 of 2010 and so far as the absconding accused, among them, viz., A.7, the case was split up, case against A.9 was abated and further, the case against A.5 (who is the petitioner herein) and A.8 was also split up and numbered as S.C.No.106 of 2013 and NBWs were issued against the absconding accused. In S.C.No.606 of 2010, A.1 to A.4, A.6, A.10, A.11 and A.12 supra faced trial and ultimately from the full dressed trial the case was ended in acquittal against said accused, by judgment, dated 16.05.2013, of the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. 4. The observations in the acquittal judgment supra from oral and documentary evidence on behalf of the prosecution covered by PWs.1 to 11 and Exs.P.1 to P.18 and M.Os.1 to 7 with no independent defence evidence in the judgment running in 22 paras, particularly from para 11 onwards are that; there is no evidence showing accused persons used mobile phones as part of the alleged conspiracy and planned for kidnap and decoity and in the absence of call details, there is no material to find that these accused were in touch with each other. According to the prosecution case, A.4 and A.5 were in jail (of whom the petitioner/A.5 is one) as on the date of the alleged offence and other accused met them at jail to hatch the scheme for the crime that cannot be believed as during cross-examination of the Investigating Officer-PW.11, he admitted that he did not collect any material from the prison authorities to show any accused met A.4 and A.5 while they were in prison. Further A.6 and A.7 were in Dubai from where they allegedly passed instructions to the other accused for the crime. As per prosecution, PWs.1 to 11 have not whispered even a word about this during their evidence and there is no material placed on record by prosecution about their stay in Dubai and about date and place of the arrival to India and speaking to rest of the accused. The allegations of the prosecution in all thereby remained mere allegations without proof. Though the allegations are based on verifiable facts, the investigating agency not cared to collect evidence to prove the case. From the prosecution case, PW.1 caught A.1, A.2 and A.3 on 21.10.2005 with arms and ammunition, two other accused persons with them, who are associates to them, could escape and whose identity not recognized immediately. PW.10-Inspector of Police deposed that as per the case record, A.4 and A.5 were in jail and police questioned them on 02.11.2005. It is thus clear that all the accused were not at one place for all the alleged crimes, particularly A.4 and A.5 supra, A.10 and A.11 supra, and A.6 respectively. Simply because A.1 to A.3 said to have been found in possession of arms, it cannot be presumed of they assembled to make preparation for dacoity and no witness positively deposed even for it, to make out any offence under Section 399 IPC, much less with any conspiracy to attract Section 120B IPC from the facts supra. There remained the charge under Indian Arms Act, 1959, against A.1 to A.3. There remained the charge under Indian Arms Act, 1959, against A.1 to A.3. To prove the same, the crucial witness PW.1-Assistat Commissioner of Police deposed that while under patrolling duty along with his staff on 21.10.2005 at 7.00 p.m. at Mirzalaguda Cross roads, he saw five persons with suspicion moving and he tried to caught hold of them, they ran away and he could intercept A.1 to A.3 and caught hold of them for the two others fled away and secured mediators including PW.2 as panch witnesses and seized in their presence from the disclosure by A.1 M.O.1 Tapancha M.O.2 live cartridges five in number, M.O.3 Nokia mobile phone under cover of Ex.P.1-panchanama, A.2 found with M.O.4 sword with 20” blade plus 5” wooden grip covered by Ex.P.2 –panchanama and when questioned A.3 found in his possession M.O.5 dagger with blade and blade of 7” in length and 4” grip covered by another panchanama and it is there from concluded with reference to the other evidence that it is proved of, which so far as A.1 concerned, for others not liable for the offence under Section 25(1)(b) of the Indian Arms Act, for the possession without licence held guilty in acquitting the other accused among them. 5. The charge is common. The allegations are common. Equally so far as the petitioner/A.5 concerned, having regard to the common evidence and the prosecution miserably failed to bring home any of the guilt of any of the accused for any of the allegations covered by the charges, but for against A.1 that too for the offence under Section 25(1) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, on same material, there is no sustainable prosecution to ask the accused to face the trial. 6. However, the fact remains that at the time of alleged commission of the offence, the petitioner/A.5 though was in jail, subsequently having came out and was enlarged on bail in this case, fled away and interrupted the proceedings for a considerable length of time and for separation of the case against him. 6. However, the fact remains that at the time of alleged commission of the offence, the petitioner/A.5 though was in jail, subsequently having came out and was enlarged on bail in this case, fled away and interrupted the proceedings for a considerable length of time and for separation of the case against him. As he also wasted the valuable time of the Courts and prosecution agency and also the valuable money of the exchequer incurred on him though otherwise entitled to acquittal by virtue of the acquittal judgment of the other accused from the evidence supra, for no practical purpose will be served to put him to trial afresh with fresh evidence of the witnesses against him, he has to compensate to the State. Thereby, it is subject to payment of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) as compensation to the State payable before the trial Court, within one month from today, the trial Court shall record the above observations to acquit the accused and if he failed to pay the amount, let him face the trial, for not entitled to the concession by virtue of this order. Leave about the power of the Court to recover the said amount as if a fine under Section 431 read with 421 Cr.P.C. as laid down by the Apex Court in Balraj v. State of U.P. 7. With the above observations and directions, the criminal petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.