PINDI DASS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is in consequence of the jurisdiction exercised by the Addl Sessions Judge, Delhi under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, hereafter called "the Code". After receiving the recommendation contained in the order dated 4th of August 1972 the Registrar issued notice thrcugh counsel to the respondents other than Mohd. Ismail who had appeared in person before him On the 13th of September, 1972 Shri Jagdish Narain appeared for the petitioner and Shri K.N. Chitkara appeared fur respondents No. 1 to 13. Notice was directed to be issued to respondents No. 14 to 23. On the 23rd of October, 1972 Mr. Sunil Kumar Raizada appeared for the counsel for the petitioner and Mr M.L. Srivastva appeared for Mr. K.N. Chitkara counsel for respondents No. 1to13 and all other respondents excepting respondent No. 16 were present in person. Fresh notice was issued to respondent No. 16. The order dated the 20th of December, 1972 made by the Registrar was to the effect that inspite of having been served personally respondent No. 16 remained absent Finding that the service war complete he directed that the matter be listed before the Court. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties. The circumstances out of which this petition arises may be noticed. Munshi and others, 23 persons accused of off. ences allegedly punishable under section 147/148/461/870 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code were charged on the 2nd of February, 1970 to stand their trial. In the course of the trial an application was filed by the public Prosecutor on the 11th of January, 1971. It deserves to be re-produced in entirety :-

(3.) . The penal laws are enacted for achieving social objectives. A person may be punished when he is found to have committed an offence. The punishment awarded to him, will be the deterent to others and will curb those elements which may otherwise be contemplating to indulge in commission of offences.

(4.) The statute places a peculiar limitation on the power of withdrawal and that limitation is that the withdrawal within section 494 can only be with the consent of the Court. The provision casts an obligation on the public prosecutor to furnish grounds to the Court which may be taken into consideration and the Court is to exercise its judicial mind and disclose in the order passed under the said provision the reasons for granting the consent in the circumstances of the particular case. My attention has been invited to M.N. Sankaranarayanan Nair v P.V. Balakrishnan and others. While dealing with .the. scope of section 494 of the Code the Supreme Court noticed the decisions by various High Courts and then observed in paragraph 8 of its judgment:-