LINGARAJ ROUTRAI Vs. LAKSHMIDHAR ROUTRAI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition, in revision challenging an order of withdrawal under Section 494 Cr.P.C. dated 8 -5 -59 passed by a First Class Magistrate of Puri. The petitioner claimed to have taken fishery lease of two tanks, named Padan Pada and Hazari Pokhari from Ghoradia Gram Punchayet. He alleged that some of the members of the opposite party forcibly caught fish from Hazari Pokhari on 19 -12 -57 and that he filed a complaint against them before the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Puri on the basis or which a regular case was started against them.

(2.) AS regards Padan Pada tank he alleged that on 11 -6 -58 at about noon the opposite party came in a mob and prevented him from catching fish from that tank. He reported the incident at the Delang Police Station and in due course charge sheet under Section 143 I.P.C. was filed against the members of the opposite party. The case was, in. due course, transferred to the file of Shri M.D. Pradhan for disposal. On 3 -6 -59 the Prosecuting Inspector, Sadar, acting under the instructions of the District Magistrate, Puri filed a petition stating that he wanted to withdraw from the prosecution. The petitioner however objected to the withdrawal. The learned Magistrate ignored his objection saving that he had no locus standi and then permitted the withdrawal of the case and acquitted the persons under Section 494 Cr.P. Code. Neither the Magistrate nor the Prosecuting Inspector gave the reasons for the withdrawal of the case. That is one of the main grounds for the admission of this revision petition, But on scrutinising the record I find that the original petition of the opposite party before the District Magistrate of Puri for withdrawal of the case containing a note of the then Sub -divisional Officer and the Superintendent of Police, is on record. In that petition, it was alleged by one Upendra Nath Patnaik that the tank known as Padan Pada was a deep tank in which good water remained throughout the year and that the villagers used to take water from that tank for drinking purposes.

(3.) THE principles to be observed in giving consent to the withdrawal of a case in exercise of the powers under Section 494 Cr.P.C. have been laid down in a recent decision of the Supreme Court, State of Bihar v. : 1957CriLJ567 . There it was pointed out that though in granting consent to the withdrawal of a case under Section 494 Cr.P.C. the Court must exercise judicial discretion, it does not necessarily follow that in the exercise of such discretion only judicial methods should be used.