Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Section 321, Withdrawal of Prosecution (Leading Case law: PETITIONER: ABDUL KARIM ETC. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS)
Facts
A man named Veerappan a criminal who is alleged to be guilty of the most heinous crimes, including the murder of 119 persons, among them Police and Forest Officers, and kidnapping. One Veerappan abducted from a film actor named Rajkumar, and three others. As of today, Rajkumar and Nagesh remain in Veerappans custody. At the time of the kidnapping, Veerappan handed over to Rajkumars wife an audio cassette to be delivered to the Chief Minister of the State of Karnataka. The audio cassette required that he send an emissary to Veerappan. The Chief Ministers of the States of decided to send as an emissary one Gopal, to Veerappan. Later Gopalsent an audio cassettee to Chennai which, in the voices of Veerappan and an associate, set out ten demands for the release of Rajkumar.
There were 10 demands, but the one to be considered is:
DEMAND :
6. Innocent persons languishing in Karnataka Jails should be released.
RESPONSE :
TADA charges will be dropped immediately facilitating release of the prisoners.
Later, an application was filed by the Special Public Prosecutor under the provisions of Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code in fourteen cases in the Court at Mysore. The cases were filed under the provisions of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act and other penal enactments against Veerappan and a large number of his alleged associates. The Prosecutor to withdraw the prosecution did not state in the application filed that why the charges are dropped to restore the peace and normalcy in the border area and among the people living in the border area and to maintain peace among the public at general and inhabitants of the particular village, the Prosecutor has decided to withdraw from the prosecution the charged under the offences of the provision punishable under Sec.3,4 and 5 of the TADA.

Issue:
Whether the application of withdrawal of Prosecution filed under section 321, CrPC was filed in good faith by the assistant PP?
Ratio Decidendi:
In in Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar & Ors, it is held therein that when an application under Section 321 is made, it is not necessary for the court to assess the evidence to discover whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. What the court has to see is whether the application is made in good faith, in the interest of public policy and justice and not to thwart or stifle the process of law. The court, after considering the facts of the case, has to see whether the application suffers from such improprieties or illegalities as would cause manifest injustice if consent was given. When the Public Prosecutor makes an application for withdrawal after taking into consideration all the material before him, the court must exercise its judicial discretion by considering such material and, on such consideration, must either give consent or decline consent. The section should not be construed to mean that the court has to give a detailed reasoned order when it gives consent. If, on a reading of the order giving consent, a higher court is satisfied that such consent was given on an overall consideration of the material available, the order giving consent has necessarily to be upheld. Section 321 contemplates consent by the court in a supervisory and not an adjudicatory manner. What the court must ensure is that the application for withdrawal has been properly made, after independent consideration by the Public Prosecutor and in furtherance of public interest. Section 321 enables the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution of any accused. The discretion exercisable under Section 321 is fettered only by a consent from the court on a consideration of the material before it. What is necessary to satisfy the section is to see that the Public Prosecutor has acted in good faith and the exercise of discretion by him is proper. The law, therefore, is that though the Government may have ordered, directed or asked a Public Prosecutor to withdraw from a prosecution, it is for the Public Prosecutor to apply his mind to all the relevant material and, in good faith, to be satisfied thereon that the public interest will be served by his withdrawal from the prosecution.
The material that the Public Prosecutor has considered must be set out, briefly but concisely, in the application or in an affidavit annexed to the application or, in a given case, placed before the court, with its permission, in a sealed envelope. The court has to give an informed consent. It must be satisfied that this material can reasonably lead to the conclusion that the withdrawal of the Public Prosecutor from the prosecution will serve the public interest;
The applications under Section 321 made by the Special Public Prosecutor before the Designated Court at Mysore submitted that the Special Public Prosecutor had decided to withdraw from prosecution the charges under the T.A.D.A. Act in order to restore the peace and normalcy in the border area and among the people living in the border area and to maintain peace among the public at general and inhabitants of the particular village and that such withdrawal from prosecution was necessary in the larger interest of the State and in order to avoid any unpleasant situation in the border area. The applications did not state why the Special Public Prosecutor apprehended a disturbance of the peace and normalcy of the border area or the particular village, nor was any material in this behalf, or a summary thereof, set out. There was, therefore, no basis laid in the applications upon which the learned Judge presiding over the Designated Court could conclude that the Special Public Prosecutor had applied his mind to the relevant material and exercised discretion in good faith and that the withdrawal would not stifle or thwart the course of the law and cause manifest injustice. As per the court, the State of Karnataka had yielded to the demands made by Veerappan and had issued notifications that it would withdraw all cases against Veerappan and his associates. No query in this regard was made by the learned Judge with the Special Public Prosecutor. The learned Judge said that he was satisfied on the material placed before him that the grant of permission to withdraw subserved the administration of justice and it had not been sought covertly, but he did not state what those materials were. The affidavit of the Special Public Prosecutor speaks of withdrawal of the TADA charges which would enable the accused to file necessary bail applications and their consequent release on bail. There can, in the circumstances, be little doubt that after their release on bail the accused respondents were not expected to attend the court to answer the remaining charges against them and that the stress laid as aforesaid was intended to mislead the Designated Court.
Judgement:
The appeal was allowed and TADA charges against the Veerappan shall continue.
Comments
Post a Comment