1979 (11) TMI 274 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of a second police investigation without judicial knowledge.
2. Influence of political considerations on the withdrawal of prosecution.
3. Compliance with Section 494 Cr.P.C. regarding the District Magistrate's order to withdraw from prosecution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of a Second Police Investigation Without Judicial Knowledge:
The judgment addresses whether a case that ends in court can be subject to a second police investigation without the judge's knowledge. The court emphasized that the administration of criminal justice is a judicial function and any deviation from the prescribed legal procedures constitutes a violation of the law. The court stated, "When a case is pending in a criminal court, its procedure and progress are governed by the Criminal Procedure Code or other relevant statute. To intercept and recall an enquiry or trial in a court, save in the manner and to the extent provided for in the law, is itself a violation of the law."

2. Influence of Political Considerations on the Withdrawal of Prosecution:
The court examined whether political considerations influenced the motion for withdrawal of the pending proceeding. It was alleged that the withdrawal was prompted by political influence, with the Assistant Public Prosecutor not applying an independent mind. The court noted, "The functionary clothed by the Code with the power to withdraw from the prosecution is the Public Prosecutor. The Public Prosecutor is not the executive, nor a flunkey of political power." The court found no evidence to support the allegations of political influence and emphasized that the Public Prosecutor must act independently, stating, "It is abundantly clear that the Assistant Public Prosecutor made an independent decision on the material before him and did not act in blind compliance with the instructions of the District Magistrate."

3. Compliance with Section 494 Cr.P.C. Regarding the District Magistrate's Order to Withdraw from Prosecution:
The court scrutinized whether the District Magistrate's order to withdraw from the case complied with Section 494 Cr.P.C. The court clarified that the decision to withdraw must be made by the Public Prosecutor and not by any executive authority. The court stated, "The Public Prosecutor-not any executive authority-is entrusted by the Code with a limited power to withdraw from a prosecution, with the court's consent whereupon the case comes to a close." The court found that the District Magistrate acted illegally in directing the Assistant Public Prosecutor to withdraw but determined that the Assistant Public Prosecutor had applied his mind independently. The court emphasized, "The decision to withdraw must be of the Public Prosecutor, not of other authorities, even of those whose displeasure may affect his continuance in office."

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Assistant Public Prosecutor's decision to withdraw from the prosecution was made independently and not under political influence. The trial court and the High Court's decisions were upheld, and the petition was rejected. The court also addressed the petitioner's grievance regarding the return of stolen goods, instructing the trial court to consider passing appropriate orders for their return if identified by the complainant. The judgment underscores the importance of judicial independence in the criminal justice process and the limited role of the executive in prosecutorial decisions.