//
you're reading...
legal issues

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. = CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1587 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) 1487 of 2012) Bairam Muralidhar … Appellant Versus State of Andhra Pradesh …Respondent = 2014 July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41797

     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.

2014 July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41797

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,704,216 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,852 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com