SUNNY MATHEW Vs. K.S. SIVAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question for consideration in this revision is whether a reasoned order is necessary, while granting permission to withdraw prosecution under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( 'the Code ' for short).

(2.) THIS revision is filed against the order passed by the Magistrate Court, on a report filed under Section 321 of the Code by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. As per the report, a request is made to allow him to withdraw the prosecution of CC No. 251 of 1998. The Court passed the following order in the report: "Report accepted and the Public Prosecutor is allowed to withdraw the case as prayed for. "

(3.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor argued that the order will show that the report filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor is accepted by the Court and hence there was application of mind. It is also argued that a detailed order is not necessary while giving consent under Section321 CrPC as held in Abdul Karim Vs. State of Karnataka, (2000) 8 SCC 710 and in Rahul Agarwal Vs. Rakesh Jain and Another, (2005) 2 SCC 377. It was also pointed out that in Rahul Agarwal 's case, it was held that the Court need not give a detailed reasoned order when it gives consent. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be set aside on the ground urged, it is argued.