was no possibility of the case ending in conviction of the petitioners inasmuch as they could not be identified by the witnesses including the first informant. The question of identification is relevant only at the trial. Therefore that question cannot be kept in mind in deciding either annex-D application or the present Crl M.C. It is not possible to accept the argument that since the sub-inspector of police who gave the FI statement died, there is no evidence to prove the charges against the petitioners. CWs 2 to 5 are cited to prove the incident including the deterring of the first informant from doing his official duty. Whether they can be believed or not or whether the evidence proposed to be brought through them are sufficient or not are certainly matters outside the scope of an inquiry under Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Let that be decided by the trial court. Another reason given by the assistant public prosecutor for seeking withdrawal from prosecution was that none of the accused was arrested. That is also no ground for seeking withdrawal. Yet another ground stated in annex-D application is that ten persons were shown as accused in the FIR, but only seven are named in the charge-sheet as accused. The said reasoning given by the assistant public
