ASTA BASU SANTRA Vs. JIBAN NANDA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revisional application filed by Asta Basu Santra challenging the order dated 25th November, 1997 passed by Mr. S. Roy, Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate in-charge, Alipore in Budge Budge Police Station Case No. 101(6)(97) under Sections 447/42, 7/307/382/387/120B, I.P.C. and also Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and further Section 3/5 of the Explosives Substance Act. By this order, the learned Magistrate, after hearing a petition under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for withdrawal from the prosecution filed by the learned A.P.P. of his Court, passed an order allowing the petition and permitting the prosecution to withdraw from the prosecution and in the result, discharging all the accused persons from their Bail Bonds.

(2.) In this revisional application, the petitioner has contended that the impugned order is palpably illegal and erroneous due to the following reasons. First, the petition for withdrawal from the prosecution under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the learned A.P.P. just like a post office without applying his mind into the letter of the District Magistrate of the District requesting him to file such a prayer for withdrawal in respect of the accused Rajib Lochan Bagchi, B.L. and L.R.O., Budge Budge and other government officials attached to that office on the plea that they were on official duty at the material point of time and without obtaining prior permission from the Government, complaint could not be lodged against them.

(3.) Learned advocate for the petitioner draws my attention to the contents of the petition dated 25th November, 1998 filed by the learned A.P.P. before the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate wherein he simply mentioned what had been stated in the letter of the District Magistrate without giving a single line by way of assigning his reasons for endorsing that D.M.'s application for withdrawal from the prosecution in respect of the accused persons. According to the learned advocate, the settled principle in this regard is that the Public Prosecutor cannot act mechanically as a pest office, but he has to apply his mind and satisfy his conscience before making such a prayer for withdrawal and also to give satisfactory reasons justifying his stand. But, here the learned A.P.P. deviated from this well settled principle and simply filed his petition before the learned Magistrate referring to the letter of the District Magistrate alone. Secondly, according to the learned advocate for the petitioner, the impugned order suffers from infirmity, inasmuch, as similar non-application of mind was indulged in by the learned Magistrate by accepting the Public Prosecutor's prayer readily without giving any reason whatsoever.