ALOPI DIN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in criminal revision on behalf of one Pt. Alopi Din, secretary of the District Board of Banda, against an order of the District Magistrate, dated 5th. September 1934. committing him for trial to the Court of Session along with three other persons Pt. Salig Ram, engineer of the District Board, Thakur Babu Singh, sub-overseer, and Suraj Prasad, a contractor, under Secs.120-B, 420, 477(a), Indian Penal Code, in the case of all the accused, and Section 218, Indian Penal Code, in the case of Alopi Din and Section 218/109, Penal Code, in the case of the three other accused. There was a complaint by B. Damodar Prasad, junior vice chairman of the District Board, against these four accused persons and the police made an investigation into the complaint and the case was prosecuted. When the prosecution began the prosecuting inspector addressed the Court and the Court passed the following order: The Prosecuting Inspector in opening the case said that he wanted to prosecute all the accused under Secs.420, 468 and 120-B, I.P.C. and that there was no case under Section 218, I.P.C. The procedure will therefore be that of a warrant ease.

(2.) One of the points in revision is that this order shows that there was a withdrawal by the prosecuting inspector from the offence of Section 218, Penal Code. Under Section 494, Criminal P.C. a public prosecutor may: withdraw from the prosecution of any person either generally Or in respect of any one or more of the offences for which he is tried.

(3.) The claim is that there was a withdrawal. The word "offence" is defined in Section 4(o), Criminal P.C. as meaning Any net or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force.