MAJOR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, dated 9th May, 2008 vide which consent of the Court under Section 321 Cr. P.C. has been granted on an application moved under Section 321 Cr. P.C. for withdrawal from prosecution qua Gurdeep Singh -respondent No. 2.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 2 - - Gurdeep Singh son of Mohan Singh is the main accused in FIR No. 113. dated 29th June, 2003 under Sections 302, 324, 449, 148 and 149 IPC read with Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station, Patti, District Tarn Taran, at the instance of the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 -Gurdeep Singh is the main accused as he is the person who killed Chanan Singh, son of Dalip Singh with the shots fired from.315 bore rifle and had escaped from the spot. He could not be arrested by the police and remained absconding, whereafter proclamation proceedings were initiated against him leading to his being declared as proclaimed offender. Challan was presented against all other accused and charge framed. The prosecution evidence was led wherein the witnesses had categorically deposed against respondent No. 2 and others vide their statements which have been appended as Annexures P -2 to P -6. Referring to those statements, counsel contends that a specific role has been attributed to respondent No. 2.

(3.) ON the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 2 has vehemently argued that after the receipt of report of the Internal Vigilance Cell, the same was considered by the Public Prosecutor whereupon a supplementary challan was presented in Court. Making that the basis, the Public Prosecutor considered the case of the prosecution in the light of the findings recorded therein and vide letter No. 4 -R -DA/L, dated 9th January. 2008 wrote to the District Magistrate. Tarn Taran that the Government of Punjab had accepted the recommendations of the District Magistrate, Tarn Taran, for withdrawal of the case against the three accused in the FIR, namely, Gurdeep Singh, Sukhraj Kaur and Hardial Singh, According to the counsel, the Public Prosecutor has applied its independent mind and had not only considered the evidence brought on record but had also taken an over all view of the matter, considering the factors which make the prosecution version doubtful and had mentioned the same in the application itself, which would go a long way to prove that the Public Prosecutor had formed his independent opinion for withdrawal from the prosecution qua the above -mentioned three accused in the FIR. He submits that withdrawal from prosecution is an executive function of the Public Prosecutor and the same, therefore, is his discretion. The said discretion having been exercised in a justifiable manner and the learned trial Court having gone into the same and thereby allowing the application under Section 321 Cr. P.C., this Court should not, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, interfere in such discretion. He relies upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Mumtaz versus Smt. Nandini Satpathy and Others AIR 1987 S.C. 863, Sheo Nandan Paswan versus State of Bihar and Others : AIR 1987 S.C. 877, Ghanshyam versus State of M.P. and Others, 2006 (4) R.C.R. (Cri) 653 and a judgement of this Court in the case of Karnail Singh versus State of Punjab and Others, 1995 (3) R.C.R. (Cri) 293.