SUBHASH CHANDER Vs. STATE CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What constrains us to explain at some length our reasons for rejection of leave to appeal in this case is the desideratum that every executive challenge to justice-in-action is a call to the court to strengthen public confidence by infusing functional freshness into the relevant law sufficient to overpower the apprehended evil.

(2.) The house of the petitioner is said to have been burgled and he alleges that he lost many valuables. The police, on information being laid, searched and recovered the property. Eventually, charges were framed by the trial court against one Hussan Lal, a jeweller, and one Madan Lal, an alleged collaborator (respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in this petition) under S. 411 I.P.C. and one Ashok Kumar under S. 380, I.P.C. During the pendency of the criminal case, the Assistant Public Prosecutor applied for withdrawal from prosecution under Section 321, Cr. P. C. on the ground that on fresh investigation by a senior officer the alleged search and seizure were discovered to be a frame-up by the concerned police officer in order to pressure the accused Hussan Lal to withdraw a certain civil litigation. On the court requiring a fuller application, the Assistant Public Prosecutor made a fresh and more detailed petition for withdrawal which was eventually granted by the trial court, despite the petitioner's remonstrance that the withdrawal was prompted by the political influence wielded by Hussan Lal leading to instructions from high quarters to the Assistant Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the case concerning that accused. It was alleged that in carrying out the instructions the Assistant Public Prosecutor did not apply an independent mind. The court nevertheless accepted the request of the Assistant Public Prosecutor and directed acquittal of Hussain Lal, while continuing the case against the remaining two accused. The order was unsuccessfully assailed in revision before the High Court by the petitioner. Undaunted by that dismissal, he has moved this court under Art. 136 of the Constitution. In view of the starting disclosure on either side we have listened at some length to the oral submissions in supplementation of the affidavits in the record.

(3.) The three focal points of argument are whether (i) a case which pends in court can be subject to a second police investigation without the judge even knowing about it, (ii) political considerations of the executive vitiate the motion for withdrawal of pending proceeding, and (iii) the District magistrate's order to withdraw from a case communicated to the Public Prosecutor and carried out by him, is compliance with S. 4.