MUKUND VISHWANATH KEVLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD. For the reasons stated in the application, I am satisfied that good and sufficient reasons exist to condone the delay. Hence delay is condoned. Not on board. Taken up for final hearing with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for rival parties.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 3.12.2008 below Ex.53 in S.T. No. 95 of 1999, by which the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad, allowed the application filed by the prosecution under Section 321 of Code of Criminal Procedure for withdrawal of the prosecution for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 330 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, the present application has been filed by the applicant.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for rival parties. I have gone through the impugned order. In my opinion, since the applicant is being prosecuted for the offence of murder at the instance of C.B.I., the right of the applicant as an independent citizen cannot be mixed up with his role as an investigator in the crime in respect of which crime was registered and charge-sheet was filed. The submission that the application could not have been filed without concurrence or consent of the State Government will have to be rejected. Secondly, it is seen that both the charge-sheets are required to be heard upon consolidation since the incident in both the cases is of the same date and time and not hearing both the chargesheets together is bound to cause prejudice to one and all. The learned counsel for the applicant has reported that there is already order of consolidation. In this peculiar situation, at least the applicant who has been charge-sheeted for serious offence of murder in respect of the said incident, will have to be heard before such a request for withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 of Code of Criminal Procedure is considered. There has to be compliance of principles of natural justice for those who are likely to be affected even remotely. Since the applicant has made a grievance that since he was never heard by the trial Court before the application was decided, in my opinion, the following order would sub-serve the ends of justice.