LAW FOR ALL

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