RAMESH JHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is against the order of the Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, dated 4-12-57 refusing to refer the case to the High Court for necessary orders. This case has a checkered career. On 30-4-54, the public prosecutor filed an application for permission to withdraw from the prosecution of all the accused persons on the following ground:

(2.) The learned Magistrate accorded permis-sion on 10-6-54 to the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution in the following words :

(3.) It will be observed that this application was based on the grounds of inexpediency of the prosecution for reasons of State. The reasons of the State were, however, not disclosed in the petition and the contention raised before the Magistrate was that in the absence of justifiable reasons the permission to withdraw should be refused. The learned Magistrate was of the opinion that dis- and the Court has to consider the grounds as stated. He held that on the grounds stated by the public prosecutor consent for withdrawal' cannot be with- held. Accordingly, he granted the permission. Against this order a reference was made by the Sessions Judge on 27-11-54 to this Court for setting aside the said order of the Magistrate on the round that the Magistrate had not exercised his iscretion judicially and properly, and it was not proper for the Magistrate to give permission to withdraw from the prosecution unless he had considered the evidence and the attendant circumstances of the case. The hearing of the reference came up before Imam, J., who accepted the reference and set aside the order of the Magistrate permitting the public prosecutor to withdraw from the case substantially on the ground that the learned Magistrate did not in effect apply his mind to the case of withdrawal, and indeed he could not because the State had not divulged the reasons. Further, he observed that the grounds stated by the public prosecutor, such as, 'reasons of State,' 'credible information received,' were too vague for any court to apply its mind. In effect, he held that there was no good ground before the Magistrate for agreeing to the withdrawal of the case.