P SEETHI HAJI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an M. L. A. of the Muslim League Party. He is a partner of the ruling coalition front in Kerala. He is arrayed as the first accused along with five other accused in a Sessions Case pending in the Sessions Court, Manjeri. It is a case based on police report. That case was committed to the Sessions Court by the Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class, Nilambur, and was made over to the Assistant Sessions Court, Manjeri for trial. After framing the charge for the offences under S.294, 454, 426, 395 and 109 of the I. P. C., and after recording the plea of the accused, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge posted the case for evidence to 7-6-1982 and the subsequent days. On the first day of posting for evidence, the Public Prosecutor filed a petition seeking permission of the Court to withdraw the case. The Assistant Sessions Judge, by his order dated 22-6-1982, refused to accord his consent to the aforesaid prayer. Hence, the petitioner challenges the said order in this revision.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is this: The petitioner, besides his political activities, had a saw mill at Nilambur. One Dr. Kharim, a Homeopathic Medical Practitioner, (hereinafter referred as the informant) is residing in the vicinity of that saw mill. He is an amateur photographer. When Forest Officers visited the petitioner's saw mill by about 11 A.M. on 15-1-1981, the informant went there with his camera to take some photographs. The petitioner expressed his resentment against this conduct but the photographer persisted in taking the photos. Then the petitioner lifted up his loin-cloth and told him to take a photograph of that also. Without hesitation, the informant clicked his camera, took a picture of that scene also and then returned to his house. This was followed by five persons including two sons of the petitioner rushing to the residence of the informant. They assaulted the informant and snatched away his Yashika camera and escaped from the house with the booty. The informant went to the local police station and filed a complaint which led Co the filing of the charge sheet against the petitioner and the other five persons.

(3.) The learned Assistant Sessions Judge refused to give consent for the withdrawal of the prosecution mainly for two reasons: (1) The grounds set out by the Public Prosecutor in his petition in support of his opinion that "proceeding with the case would result only in wastage of time, energy and expenses" are totally unsustainable, and (2) the application for withdrawal of the prosecution was not made in the exercise of his own judgment, but under the influence of some external authority. The learned Judge concluded as follows: "in the present case, I have no reason to believe that the Prosecutor was satisfied that he should withdraw from the prosecution for good and relevant reasons other than political reasons".