P V THIAGARAJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revisions arise from the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Wallajapet and the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Vellore, in C.C.Nos.104 of 1991 and 108 of 1991 on their files, permitting to withdraw the prosecution cases.

(2.) THE second respondent in Criminal Revision Case No. 136 of 1992 was prosecuted under Secs.341 and 506, Part II of Indian Penal Code whereas in the said case, the accused were prosecuted under Secs. 147, 148, 323, 324, 435 and 506, Part II read with Sec. 149 of Indian Penal Code. In Criminal R.C. No.136 of 1992 when the process of trial was going on after examining the witness, the Assistant Public Prosecutor filed a memo under Sec. 321, Criminal Procedure Code, seeking permission of the court to withdraw the prosecution. In the other case, some of the accused did not appear and the summons were pending against them. At that stage the Assistant Public Prosecutor moved before the learned Magistrate under Sec. 321, Criminal Procedure Code to withdraw the prosecution. In both cases, the learned Magistrates have permitted withdrawal. This order is being challenged by the complainants of those cases, in these revisions.

(3.) IN Criminal R.C. No.136 of 1992, the learned counsel would argue that no reason is given in the memo of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for withdrawing this case and when the witnesses have been examined and the accused was in the midst of trial, without assigning any proper reason the prosecution case has been withdrawn by the state and this is against the considered view of the Supreme Court and therefore the order of the learned Magistrate has to be set aside. IN the other revision, the learned Magistrate has given the reason that the case was pending nearly for 1 1/2 years and inspite of it the accused could not be brought before the court and therefore the request of the Assistant Public Prosecutor to withdraw the case was accepted. The learned Government Advocate herein does not oppose these revisions and he concedes that as proper reasons have not been given for withdrawing the case, they are liable to be set aside.