SHEONANDAN PASWAN1987 SUPP1 Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgments of the court were delivered by

(2.) BY this appeal, preferred on the basis of the special leave granted to him, the appellant is challenging the withdrawal from the prosecution of respondents 2, 3 and 4 in a criminal case under S. 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

(3.) ON the other hand, counsel for the respondents refuted all the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant. It was denied that the withdrawal in question was unjustified on merits or illegal or contrary to the principles governing the exercise of the power under S. 321 : on the contrary counsel for the respondents urged that <PG>453</PG> the decisions of this court had clarified the position that under the Code a withdrawal from the prosecution was an executive function of the Public Prosecutor, that the discretion to withdraw from the prosecution was that of the Public Prosecutor and none else and that he could withdraw from the prosecution not merely on the ground of paucity of evidence but on other relevant grounds as well in order to further the broad ends of public justice, public order and peace and the broad ends of public justice would include appropriate social, economic and political purposes, and what was more in granting its consent to the withdrawal the court merely performed a supervisory function and in discharging such function the court was not to reappreciate the grounds which led the Public Prosecutor to request withdrawal from the prosecution but to consider whether the Public Prosecutor had applied his mind as a free agent, uninfluenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations. It was disputed that the grounds (b), (c) and (d) mentioned in the application seeking permission to withdraw were irrelevant or extraneous or that ground (a) was untenable. According to counsel, in the instant case Sbri Lalan Prasad Sinha. being in charge as well as in the conduct of the case was competent to make the application for withdrawal and he had done so after considering all the relevant factors and circumstances bearing on the issue and satisfying himself about it and not at the behest of the government as contended by the appellant and the learned Special Judge also performed his supervisory function in granting the requisite permission on relevant considerations. Counsel emphatically denied that either the Public Prosecutor's decision to withdraw from the prosecution or the Special Judge's supervisory function was vitiated by non-application of mind. Lastly, it was contended that this court should not interfere with the impugned orders of the trial court as well as the High court in exercise of its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution and the appeal be dismissed.