SAHAJ RAM Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against the order dated 22 -6 -1994 passed by the Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in case No. 6/1990 Sahaj Ram v. State under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that a complaint was filed before the competent court under Section 3/7 E.C. Act. Thereafter, the charge was framed against the revisionist and case was fixed for prosecution evidence. Meanwhile, an application was moved by the public prosecutor on the ground that the present case is pending since long and in pursuance of the Government order dated 11 -4 -1994 all the cases pending under E.C. Act had been withdrawn by the Government. As such the permission to withdraw the case was sought by the public prosecutor. The learned Special Judge (E.C. Act) after considering the respective contentions of the parties came to the conclusion that the public interest has not been defined under the aforesaid Government order as the charge has already been framed, the permission to withdraw the case was refused. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order the present revision has been filed.

(3.) IT is well settled position of law that the power of the court under Section 321 Code of Criminal Procedure is supervisory and it does not mean while exercising its power the consent has to be granted with regard to the withdrawal of the case. The court has to examine as to whether air the relevant aspects of the matter have been taken into consideration by the public prosecutor and only the application filed by the State Government in exercise of its executive functions. When such application is filed by the public prosecutor before the court after taking into account the material placed before him the court exercises its judicial discretion by considering such material and on such consideration either gives the consent to withdraw the case or decline the consent. The material placed by the public prosecutor must be set out in the application or in an affidavit annexed to the application should be placed before the court then the court is to give the consent as indicated under Section 321 Code of Criminal Procedure It is also essential that the court must be satisfied that this material placed before it can reasonably come to the conclusion that the withdrawal of the prosecution by the public prosecutor will serve the public interest. It is the duty of the public prosecutor to weigh the material placed before the court and the court must be satisfied that the public prosecutor has considered the entire material in good faith to reach to the conclusion that the withdrawal from the prosecution will serve the public interest. The court must also consider whether the grant of consent may thwart or stifle the court. In the present case, the learned trial court while declining the consent has not recorded any finding that the public prosecutor has not weighed the evidence and considered all the aspects of the case. The learned trial court has not discussed any detail with regard to the material placed before it. As such, the learned trial court has erred in declining the permission to withdraw the case.