MOHAMMAD MUMTAZ Vs. NANDINI SATPATHY1

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I agree that this appeal has to be dismissed. I am of the view that the decision in State of Bihar v. Ram Naresh Pandey, 1957 SCR 279 : (AIR 1957 SC 389) interpreting section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and the decision in R. K. Jain v. State through Special Police Establishment (1980) 3 SCR 982: (AIR 1980 SC 15 10) interpreting section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 do not call for any reconsideration. I am in full agreement with the views expressed in these decisions. I am satisfied that the Public Prosecutor had applied his mind to the case before applying for withdrawal and the Chief Judicial Magistrate has not committed any error in giving his consent to such withdrawal.

(2.) The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

(3.) KHALID, J:- I have just received (at 7.40 p.m. on 19th December, 1986) a draft judgment by Oza. J. in the above case. I agree with the conclusion that the appeal has to be dismissed, but not, with respect, with the reasoning contained in the judgment. Since the case is listed for judgment on 20th December, 1986, I do not have time to write a detailed judgment.