Sec.321 of Cr.P.C. – withdrawal of prosecution – Permission rejected – offence under Section 7 & 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – G.O. issued to withdraw – basing on G.O. – prosecutor filed the petition for withdraw – Trial court rejected the same – High court confirmed the same – Apex court held that we are of the considered opinion that view expressed by the learned trial Judge as well as the High Court cannot be found fault with.
We say so as we are inclined to think that there is no ground to show that such withdrawal would advance the cause of justice and serve the public interest. That apart, there was no independent application of mind on the part of the learned public prosecutor, possibly thinking that the Court would pass an order on a mere asking. The view expressed in Name Dasarath’s case (supra) is not applicable to the case at hand as the two- Judge Bench therein has opined that the law laid down in Sheo Nandan Paswan’s case has not been correctly appreciated by the learned trial Judge and the High Court. We have referred to the said authority and the later decisions which are on the basis of Sheo Nandan Paswan’s case have laid down the principles pertaining to the duty of the public prosecutor and the role of the Court and we find the view expressed by the trial Court and the High Court is absolutely impregnable and, therefore, the decision in Name Dasarath (supra) is distinguishable on facts. In the result, the criminal appeal, being sans substratum, is dismissed. =
learned Single Judge has concurred with the view expressed by the Principal
Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderbad in Crl. P
No. 994 of 2009 in C.C. No. 24 of 2007, whereunder the learned trial Judge
had declined to grant permission to withdraw the case pending against the
accused-appellant in exercise of the power under Section 321 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”). =
Ranga Dharma Goud who was
working as a Driver in Dubai came to India and he was asked to come to the
Police Station on 22.04.2006 and again on 26.04.2006 on which dates the
investigating officer demanded a sum of Rs.6000/- to be paid for not
implicating him in the said kidnapping case and also to file the charge-
sheet against his son by reducing the gravity of the charge.
As Ranga
Dharma Gaud expressed his inability to pay the amount the investigating
officer reduced the demand to Rs.5000/-.
Expressing his unwillingness to
pay, he approached the DSP, ADB, Nizamabad Range, who after due
verifications, registered a case in Cr. No. 4/ACB/NZB/2006 on 4.5.2006
under Section 7 & 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Act.
On the basis
of the registration of the FIR the trap was laid and eventually charge-
sheet was placed against the accused officer before the competent Court.
When the case came up for hearing on charge the public prosecutor
filed a petition on 22.06.2009 to withdraw the case against the accused
officer on the ground that the Government of A.P. had issued G.P. Ms. No.
268 of Home (SC.A) Department, dated 23.05.2009, to withdraw the
prosecution against the accused officer.
copy of the G.O. Ms. No. 268 that was annexed to the petition of the
Special Public Prosecutor wherein it was mentioned that on the due
examination
the Government had found regard being had to the good work of
the accused in the anti-extremist field and other meritorious service
his
case be placed before the Administrative Tribunal for disciplinary
proceedings after withdrawal of the prosecution pending in the court of
Special Judge.
The learned trial Judge referred to various authorities,
adverted to the role and duty of the public prosecutor and the role of the
Court under Section 321 of the Code, and further taking note of the nature
of the case and grant of sanction by the State Government to prosecute the
case opined that the public prosecutor really had not applied his
independent mind except filing the petition with copy of G.O. Ms. issued by
State Government;
that there were no sufficient ground or circumstances for
the Court to accept the withdrawal of the prosecution case against the
officer; and that there was no justification to allow such an application
regard being had to the offences against the accused persons, and
accordingly, dismissed the petition.
Conclusion
whether in the
obtaining factual score the Court was justified to decline permission under
Section 321 of the Code for withdrawal of the case.
we are of the considered opinion that view expressed by the
learned trial Judge as well as the High Court cannot be found fault with.
We say so as we are inclined to think that there is no ground to show that
such withdrawal would advance the cause of justice and serve the public
interest.
That apart, there was no independent application of mind on the
part of the learned public prosecutor, possibly thinking that the Court
would pass an order on a mere asking.
The view expressed in Name
Dasarath’s case (supra) is not applicable to the case at hand as the two-
Judge Bench therein has opined that the law laid down in Sheo Nandan
Paswan’s case has not been correctly appreciated by the learned trial Judge
and the High Court.
We have referred to the said authority and the later
decisions which are on the basis of Sheo Nandan Paswan’s case have laid
down the principles pertaining to the duty of the public prosecutor and the
role of the Court and we find the view expressed by the trial Court and the
High Court is absolutely impregnable and, therefore, the decision in Name
Dasarath (supra) is distinguishable on facts.
In the result, the criminal appeal, being sans substratum, is dismissed.
advocatemmmohan 
Discussion
Comments are closed.