JERFAN SK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHARGE was framed against eighteen accused under sections 14813071149 I. P. C. Thereafter the Public Prosecutor, Murshidabad, put in an application for withdrawal under section 321 Cr. P. C. The prayer was allowed by the learned. Sessions judge. One Jerfan Ask. , petitioner, filed the present application for revision.

(2.) IT has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that in this case a grave offence was committed because actually gun was fired. The Public prosecutor filed an application for withdrawal at the instance of the State Government after the charge was framed. He did not apply his mind to the facts of the case. The prayer for withdrawal was illegally allowed and the same can not be sustained in law.

(3.) THE learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused opposite parties has stated that though the application was filed by the Public Prosecutor for withdrawal, the learned Sessions judge went through the first information report and the statement of the witnesses. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case he allowed the prayer for withdrawal. The applicant has no locus standi to file the present application. He has referred to an unreported decision where borooah, J. spoke for the Bench in a recent case The case in 26 CWN 880, jagat versus Kalimuddin, has been dated to show that in such cases the court must give its reason for the order of withdrawal. Here the learned Sessions judge gave full reasons for passing the order in question. 19