2000 (11) TMI 1257 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Kidnapping of Rajkumar by Veerappan.
2. Demands made by Veerappan and responses by the States of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.
3. Application under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code for withdrawal of TADA charges.
4. Opposition to the withdrawal application by the father of a victim.
5. Orders of the Designated Court at Mysore and Chennai.
6. Bail applications and subsequent orders.
7. Public interest petitions challenging the withdrawal and bail orders.
8. Legal requirements under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
9. Conduct and decisions of the State Governments and Public Prosecutors.
10. The role of the judiciary in granting consent under Section 321.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Kidnapping of Rajkumar by Veerappan:
The judgment begins by detailing the kidnapping of Rajkumar and three others by Veerappan on the night of 30th July 2000. Veerappan, a notorious criminal, had been evading capture for over ten years, committing heinous crimes including poaching, smuggling, and murder. Despite prior intelligence indicating a threat to Rajkumar, no police protection was provided during his visit to Gajanoor.

2. Demands by Veerappan and Responses:
Veerappan made ten demands for the release of Rajkumar, which included political and economic issues such as the Cauvery water dispute, compensation for riot victims, and the release of prisoners. The responses from the States of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu varied, with some demands being considered favorably and others being partially addressed or deferred.

3. Application under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code:
On 10th August 2000, the Special Public Prosecutor filed an application under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code to withdraw TADA charges against Veerappan and his associates. The application claimed that the withdrawal was necessary to restore peace and normalcy in the border area and to maintain public order.

4. Opposition to the Withdrawal Application:
The father of Shakeel Ahmed, a police officer allegedly killed by Veerappan, opposed the withdrawal application, arguing that it was a result of yielding to Veerappan's demands and lacked cogent reasons. The Special Public Prosecutor contended that not all cases against Veerappan were being withdrawn and denied yielding to blackmail.

5. Orders of the Designated Court at Mysore and Chennai:
The Designated Court at Mysore granted the withdrawal application, stating that the Special Public Prosecutor had applied his mind and that the withdrawal served the administration of justice. Similarly, the Designated Court at Chennai allowed the withdrawal of TADA charges against Venkatesan based on a government order.

6. Bail Applications and Subsequent Orders:
Following the withdrawal of TADA charges, the accused filed bail applications, which were granted by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysore. The court noted a change in circumstances and found no prima facie case against the accused for the said offences.

7. Public Interest Petitions:
Public interest petitions were filed challenging the orders of the Designated Courts and the decisions of the State Governments. The Supreme Court issued an interim order preventing the release of the accused on bail or otherwise pending further orders.

8. Legal Requirements under Section 321:
Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from prosecution with the consent of the court. The court must ensure that the application is made in good faith, in the public interest, and does not stifle the process of law or cause manifest injustice. The Public Prosecutor must independently apply his mind to the relevant material.

9. Conduct and Decisions of the State Governments and Public Prosecutors:
The affidavits revealed that the decisions to withdraw TADA charges were influenced by the State Governments' apprehensions of civil disturbances if harm came to Rajkumar. The Special Public Prosecutor acted on information provided by the government without independently verifying the material, thus failing to meet the legal requirements for withdrawal under Section 321.

10. Role of the Judiciary:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the judiciary's role in granting consent under Section 321 is supervisory, not adjudicatory. The court must ensure that the Public Prosecutor's decision is based on relevant material and is made in good faith. The orders of the Designated Courts were found to be lacking in this regard and were set aside.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the orders granting withdrawal of TADA charges and bail. The court highlighted the importance of adhering to legal requirements and ensuring that decisions are made in good faith and in the public interest. The judgment underscores the judiciary's role in preventing abuse of legal provisions and maintaining the integrity of the legal process.