STATE Vs. MAHMOOD BUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision filed by Sri B. N. Katju, the Public Prosecutor against the order of the I Civil and Sessions Judge. Allahabad dated 13. 3. 1972 rejecting his application for withdrawal of criminal case No. 449 of 1970. State v. Sri Mahmood Butt I. A. S. Administrator and 26 other employees of the Nagar Mabapalika, Allahabad. It appears that on 12. 10. 1970 Sri G. C. Ohaturvedi, I. A. S. District Magistrate, Allahabad had taken cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 read with Section 301, I. P. C. 307 and 395 I. P. C. against the accused referred to above. After taking cognizance, the District Magistrate transferred this case to the file of the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) Allahabad for disposal according to law. The accused Sri M. Butt filed a revision against the order of the District Magistrate taking cognizance of the case which was referred by the I Additional Civil and Sessions Judge, Allahabad on 2. 2. 1972 to this Court for setting aside the said order and for a direction that the prosecution of Sri M. Butt should be started only after compliance of the provisions of Section 197, Cr. P. C. That criminal reference is No. 440 of 1972. On February 20, 1971 Sri Rishi Ram, Public Prosecutor applied in case No. 449 of 1970 under Section 494, Cr. P. C. praying for the permission of the court to accord its consent for the withdrawal of the prosecution of Sri M. Butt and the other 26 co-accused for the offences mentioned above. One Sri Ramadhar Fender filed objections against the application of the Public Prosecutor which had been ordered by the Magistrate to be amalgamated with this case. It, appears that subsequently, the State Government appointed Sri. B. N. Katju as Public Prosecutor and he put in his appearance to support the application for withdrawal filed by Sri. Rislhi Ram, On 23. 10. 1971 he moved an application for adding some fresh grounds to the application for withdrawal of the case. Sri Ramadhar Pandey who objected to the withdrawal was represented by Sri P. C. Chaturvedi. Advocate before the court of the Additional District Magistrate (J) Allahabad. Sri B. N. Katju raised a preliminary objection that Sri Ramadhar had no locus stand to oppose the withdrawal application as he was a stranger to the proceedings. This objection of the Public Prosecutor was upheld by the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) on 17. 11. 1971 but he permitted Sri P. C. Chaturvedi, Advocate to argue the law points amicus curiae to assist the court in the correct appreciation of the complicated questions of law involved therein. The Additional District Magistrate by his order dated 1. 12. 1971 rejected the application of the Public Prosecutor for withdrawal of the case against the aforesaid accused persons. Aggrieved thereby Sri B. N. Katju filed a revision before the I Civil and Sessions Judge Allahabad which was dismissed by him on 30. 3. 1972. Thereafter Sri B. N. Katju filed criminal revision No. 690 of 1972 before this Court. As common questions of law and facts were involved, this revision was directed by this Court to be lasted along with Criminal Reference No. 449 of 1972 referred to above. Both the criminal revision and the criminal reference have been heard by me together. I have given the details of the case in the connected criminal reference No. 440 of 1972. It is therefore, not necessary for me to repeat those facts in this criminal revision. The facts for the purpose of this case may therefore be taken from the connected criminal reference No. 440 of 1972 which has also been decided by me today.

(2.) THE first point which has been very hotly contested in this revision is the right of Sri P. C. Chaturvedi Advocate to address this Court. It is contended by Sri B. N. Katiu. Public Prosecutor, that Sri P. C. Chaturvedi. Advocate does not represent any of the parties in this revision. It is also submitted that he is not even counsel for any of the parties in the connected reference; as such he has no right to be heard by this Court.

(3.) SRI P. C. Chaturvedi on the other hand contended that he was counsel for Sri R. A. Pandey who had objected to the withdrawal of the case and he was entitled to be heard in this Court. I p not inclined to accept the submission made by Sri P. C. Chaturvedi for the simple reason that Sri R. A. Pandey had-no locus stands to oppose the withdrawal application filed by the public prosecutor. I have however, permitted Sot Chaturvedi to address the Court Amicus Curiae.