9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Scope and nature of the power under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. Competence of Shri Lalan Prasad Sinha to apply for withdrawal from prosecution. 3. Justification and legality of the withdrawal from prosecution of Respondents Nos. 2, 3, and 4. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Scope and Nature of the Power under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: The court discussed the true scope and nature of the power under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C., 1973. The section allows a Public Prosecutor to withdraw from prosecution with the consent of the court before the judgment is pronounced. The section does not provide specific guidelines on the circumstances or grounds for withdrawal, necessitating reliance on judicial decisions for clarity. The court reviewed several precedents, including State of Bihar v. Ram Naresh Pandey, State of Orissa v. Chandrika Mohapatra, Balwant Singh v. State of Bihar, and R.K. Jain v. The State. These cases emphasize the functional dichotomy between the Public Prosecutor (executive function) and the court (supervisory judicial function). The Public Prosecutor must exercise discretion independently, considering public justice, public order, and peace. The court's role is to ensure that the Public Prosecutor's discretion is not improperly exercised or influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations. The court concluded that the withdrawal from prosecution could be justified on grounds beyond the paucity of evidence, including broader public justice, public order, and peace, which may include social, economic, and political purposes. The court emphasized that the Public Prosecutor's decision must be based on relevant considerations and not influenced by extraneous factors. 2. Competence of Shri Lalan Prasad Sinha to Apply for Withdrawal from Prosecution: The appellant argued that Shri Lalan Prasad Sinha was not competent to apply for withdrawal as he was not the Public Prosecutor in charge of the case. The court examined the facts and concluded that although Shri A.K. Dutt was initially appointed as the Special Public Prosecutor, he had not appeared in the case at any stage. Shri Lalan Prasad Sinha, appointed later, was in charge of the case and had appeared on multiple occasions before the Special Judge, making him the proper officer to apply for withdrawal. The court also addressed the argument that Shri Lalan Prasad Sinha acted at the behest of the State Government. It found that the State Government had suggested withdrawal but had asked Shri Lalan Prasad Sinha to consider the matter independently. The court found no material to doubt that Shri Lalan Prasad Sinha had considered the relevant materials and made his own decision. 3. Justification and Legality of the Withdrawal from Prosecution of Respondents Nos. 2, 3, and 4: The court examined whether the withdrawal from prosecution was unwarranted and unjustified on facts and in law. The Public Prosecutor had cited four grounds for withdrawal: lack of prospect of successful prosecution, implication due to political and personal vendetta, inexpediency of prosecution for reasons of State and public policy, and adverse effects on public interest. The court found that grounds (b), (c), and (d) were irrelevant and extraneous to the issue of withdrawal in this case, as the offences were common law crimes of bribery and forgery, not political offences or committed during any explosive situation involving emotive issues. The court emphasized that the public interest of administering criminal justice could not be sacrificed in such cases, especially when a highly placed person was allegedly involved. Regarding ground (a), the court examined the documentary evidence and found that a prima facie case of criminal misconduct and forgery was made out against Respondent No. 2. The court concluded that the Public Prosecutor's decision to withdraw on the ground of lack of prospect of successful prosecution was not valid, as the available material was sufficient to make out a prima facie case. The court also noted a legal infirmity in the application for withdrawal, as it mentioned an offence under Section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which was not the charge against Respondent No. 2. This indicated non-application of mind by both the Public Prosecutor and the Special Judge, leading to the quashing of the withdrawal from prosecution. Conclusion: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the withdrawal order, and directed that Vigilance P.S. Case No. 9(2)78 be proceeded with and disposed of in accordance with law.
|
