CHARGES of rape levelled at two men accused of subjecting a young woman to a sexual ordeal at one of York’s best-known curry houses have been dropped.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has confirmed it will not proceed with its case against Mohammed Abul Kashem and Sibbir Ahamed, who stood trial following allegations they gang-raped a female customer at the Mogul Restaurant in Tanner Row.

The pair spent six days in the dock at York Crown Court after being accused of carrying out a sex attack in the Indian restaurant’s upstairs dining room on December 15 last year, which they both denied.

But after a jury failed to return any verdicts and was discharged last week, Judge Peter Benson gave the CPS seven days to consider whether it wanted to seek a retrial.

It has now decided not to proceed and formal not guilty verdicts in the case of Mr Kashem, 22, and Mr Ahamed, 33, both of Lady Pit Lane, Leeds, were returned yesterday.

They had been charged with rape together with a third man, Prince Ahmed, 22, of Settle Street, London, who, like Mr Kashem, had been working at the restaurant at the time the offence was alleged to have happened. Mr Ahmed was formally acquitted during the course of the trial following legal arguments.

The CPS had alleged the woman who made the allegation – who cannot be named for legal reasons – had been drinking heavily before arriving at the Mogul in the early hours of December 15 and, when she went upstairs to the restaurant’s toilets, she was gang-raped. But both Mr Kashem and Mr Ahamed claimed she initiated sex.

“We are not going to proceed with this case as we have come to the conclusion that there is no longer a realistic prospect of a conviction,” said a CPS spokeswoman.

“We have contacted the alleged victim in this case to explain why this is. In terms of proceeding with the case, we have also taken into account the impact of the proceedings on her.”

The not guilty verdicts were originally due to be passed on Wednesday, but Judge Benson delayed this until yesterday due to his dissatisfaction at no CPS representative being in court.

“I find it completely ridiculous and wholly wrong that somebody from the prosecution is not here to explain matters,” he said.” In a highly sensitive case like this, we should have somebody from the prosecution to explain on behalf of the CPS some of the reasons why they reached this decision, not that I would do anything but agree with it.”

The CPS spokeswoman said: “Normally, we would not attend as it is an administrative matter, but as the judge has indicated he would like somebody there, we have made sure that happens.”