1971 (11) TMI 175 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the withdrawal of prosecution under Section 494 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Justification for the committal of the accused without recording evidence.
3. Validity of splitting charges into multiple cases.
4. Grounds for the Public Prosecutor's withdrawal from prosecution.
5. Role of the State Government in directing the Public Prosecutor to seek withdrawal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Withdrawal of Prosecution under Section 494 of the Criminal Procedure Code:
The central issue was whether the Public Prosecutor's withdrawal from prosecution was legally justified. Section 494 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from prosecution with the consent of the court. The judgment emphasizes that the Public Prosecutor must independently decide to withdraw, and the court must ensure that such withdrawal serves the interest of justice and is not based on extraneous grounds. The court held that the reasons provided by the Public Prosecutor, such as the civil nature of the dispute, the decision in a civil suit, the expense of securing witnesses, and the delay in trial, were insufficient to justify withdrawal. The court concluded that the withdrawal was not in the interest of justice and set aside the permission granted by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court.

2. Justification for the Committal of the Accused without Recording Evidence:
The High Court had earlier dismissed a revision petition challenging the committal of the accused without recording evidence, relying on Section 207-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. This section allows a Magistrate to commit an accused to trial based on the police report without recording evidence. The judgment referenced the Supreme Court decision in Ramanarayan Mor and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, which upheld the procedure under Section 207-A. The court found no illegality in the committal proceedings, affirming that the Magistrate acted within his powers.

3. Validity of Splitting Charges into Multiple Cases:
The Assistant Sessions Judge had split the charges into eight separate cases, which was challenged by the second respondent. The High Court, following the Supreme Court decision in Ranchhodlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, upheld the splitting of charges. The court noted that while the charges could be consolidated, the prosecution could withdraw other charges if one trial resulted in a conviction. The judgment did not interfere with the High Court's decision on this matter.

4. Grounds for the Public Prosecutor's Withdrawal from Prosecution:
The Public Prosecutor's memo cited several grounds for withdrawal, including the civil nature of the dispute, a civil court decision, the expense of securing distant witnesses, and the delay in trial. The court found these grounds insufficient and emphasized that the withdrawal should be based on the inability to produce sufficient evidence or other substantial reasons related to the administration of justice. The court highlighted that the charges involved serious criminal offenses like cheating and forgery, which warranted a trial. The court also noted that the delay was primarily due to the respondents' revision petitions, and the expense of prosecution was not a valid reason for withdrawal.

5. Role of the State Government in Directing the Public Prosecutor to Seek Withdrawal:
The appellant contended that the Public Prosecutor's decision to withdraw was influenced by the State Government, which directed the withdrawal in the interest of public policy. The court clarified that while the Public Prosecutor could seek the government's consent, the decision to withdraw must be independently made by the Public Prosecutor. The court reiterated that the withdrawal should not be based on government policy or expediency but should serve the interest of justice. The court found that the Public Prosecutor did not exercise independent judgment and acted on the government's directive, which was improper.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the permission for withdrawal granted by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court, and directed that the trial proceed in accordance with law. The judgment underscores the importance of the Public Prosecutor's independent decision-making and the court's role in ensuring that withdrawals from prosecution are justified and serve the interest of justice.