A VENKATRAMANA Vs. MUDIAM SANJEEVA RAGUDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts which give rise to this petition are these: - The petitioner's brother named Chinna Dasthagiri was murdered on 16-4-1974 at 9. p.m. The petitioner lodged a complaint with Mydkur Police Station and it was registered as Crime No. 41/74. In that complant, the petitioner had implicated A-1 and A-2. After registration of the crime and completion of the investigation, the local police filed a charge sheet on 6-5-74. It was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 1/74 on the file of the J.S CM., Proddatur. In the meantime, the C.B.C.I,D. also took up investigation and later filed a second charge-sheet on 25-4-1974 against two other accused. This charge sheet was taken on file as P.R.C.No. 5/74 on the file of the same Court. The petitioner then filed Crl. M.P. No. 1692/74 in this Court to quash P.R.C. No. 5/74. Our learned brother, Ramachandra Raju, J., by his order dated 23-8-1974 quashed P.R.C.No. 5/74 and observed that the names mentioned in the second charge-sheet be added as accused Nos. 3 and 4 in P. R. C. No. 1/74. There after through G.O.Rt.No. 81 dated 31-1-1975 Government had decided to withdraw the prosecution launched against A-1 and A-2 and requested the Collector to Instruct the concerned Public Prosecutor to file a petition for withdrawal from prosecution under S. 321, Cr. P. C. 1973 in so far as A-1 and A-2 were concerned. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Grade 11 filed a petition under S.321 before the J S. C. M., Proddatur to permit him to withdraw from prosecution against A-1 and A-2. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that he had no jurisdiction to permit or refuse the withdrawal from prosecution under S. 321 Cr. P. C. 1973.

(2.) The State preferred a revision before the Court of Session, Cuddapah, and the learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision holding that the Magistrate did have jurisdiction to permit or refuse the withdrawal from prosecution under S. 321, Cr. P. C 1973. The learned Sessions Judge also went into the merits of the application and observed as follows " I am satisfied with the reason given for seeking withdrawal of prosecution against R-l and R-2

(3.) Aggrieved by this order of the court of Session; the petitioner has preferred this revision. One of us sitting single (i. e. Muktadar, J. ,) noting that the point of law involved is important, had referred the matter for consideration of the Bench, and that is how this revision is before us.