STATE Vs. RAJKISHORE PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite party was being prosecuted under Section 116 (1) (a), read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (No. 87 of 1954). The hearing of the case was over and it was posted for judgment to 13.12.69. Just on the previous day the Prosecuting Inspector (Vigilance) filed an application for withdrawal of the case, under Section 494, Criminal Procedure Code The grounds taken in that application were :

(2.) THIS application was taken up on 13.12.69 and the learned Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) passed the following orders :

(3.) IT would appear from the contents of the application for withdrawal, already extracted, that the Prosecuting Inspector put in a perfunctory memo, wherein he did not even press that the case should be allowed to be withdrawn. All that he mentioned in both the paragraphs was that he should be permitted to withdraw from the Prosecution. It is one thing to allow withdrawal of a case and it is quite a different matter to allow the conducting Prosecutor to withdraw from the case. This is being pointed out to show that not only the learned Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) did not keep the law in view, but he had not carefully gone through the application in order to ascertain what relief was sought by the Prosecuting Inspector. Section 494, Criminal Procedure Code runs thus :