Balwant Singh vs State of C.G.

Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.—By the impugned order dated 25-11-2002 passed by Shri Gautam Chouradia, Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, the application u/s 321 I.P.C. filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor for withdrawal from prosecution was rejected.

Brief facts are that on 5-11-1995, Khursoram Dewangan was proceeding from Hirapur to Mirauni. On way, he was laid by the applicant-Balwant Singh and some other persons. Khursoram was assaulted and both his eye balls were removed with a knife. On his report, an offence u/s 147, 148, 149, 307 and 120B I.P.C. was registered in crime No. 226/95 at P.S. Dabhra. In sessions Case No. 127/99 charge u/s 148 and 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C. was framed against the applicant on 14-7-1999.

On 28-8-2002 an application u/s 321 was filed by Assistant Public Prosecutor before Shri Gautam Chauradia, Addl. Sessions Judge, in Sessions Case No 127/99 for withdrawal from prosecution on the ground that the District Magistrate, Janjgir-Champa had, vide memo dated 18-9-2002 directed him to seek withdrawal from prosecution in Session Case No. 127/99 with the consent of the Court. On 25-11-2002, another application was filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor which was duly supported with an affidavit u/s 321 Code of Criminal Procedure for withdrawal from prosecution on the ground that due to political rivalry, there was a likelihood of group conflicts and breach of peace, and therefore, the State Government had taken a decision that application for withdrawal from prosecution u/s 321 Code of Criminal Procedure should be filed in public interest. Shri Gautam Chauradia, the learned Additional Sessions Judge asked the Assistant Public Prosecutor to substantiate the aforesaid reasons mentioned in the application. Assistant Public Prosecutor admitted that he had no knowledge about the same and the State Government had resolved to make an application for withdrawal from prosecution. The learned trial Court considered the application and also considered the facts and circumstances of the case. Vide order dated 25-11-2002 the learned trial Judge rejected the application u/s 321 Code of Criminal Procedure.

Shri Ashish Shukla, learned Govt. Advocate and Shri Nande, learned Counsel appearing for the coplainant raised a preliminary objection that accused-applicant Balwant Singh has no locus standi to file this criminal revision since it was the State of Chhattisgarh which was aggrieved by the impugned order which did not prefer any revision against the order dated 25-11-2002.

Smt. Hamida Siddiqui, learned Counsel for the applicant on the other hand contended that u/s 397 Code of Criminal Procedure, the revision is maintainable.

Having heard the rival contentions, I have perused the record. Withdrawal from prosecution is an executive function of the Public Prosecutor who is an officer of the Court and also responsible to the Court. The Court performs a supervisory function in granting its consent to the withdrawal. It is the duty of the Public Prosecutor to inform the Court and it is also duty of the Court to ascertain the reasons which permitted the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution since it is a responsibility and a stake in the administration of criminal justice. It is the duty of the Court to protect the administration of criminal justice against possible abuse or misuse by the executive by resort to the provisions of Section 321 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

The facts and circumstances of the case as divulged from the final report did not give the case any political colour. The manner in which an attempts was made on the life of Khursoram Dewangan and both his eye balls were removed by a knife spoke of gruesome personal vengeance. There was nothing to substantiate that any likelihood of breach of peace or group conflicts existed or mat withdrawal from prosecution was in public interest. The trial Court in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of any justification forthcoming from the Public Prosecutor for withdrawal from prosecution was wholly justified in refusing to grant consent to the application u/s 321 Code of Criminal Procedure for withdrawal from prosecution.

I am also of the considered view that upon rejection of application u/s 321 Code of Criminal Procedure for withdrawal from prosecution, this revision is not maintainable at the behest of the accused since the State Government being the aggrieved party had not filed any revision. Thus, the revision deserves to be dismissed on this count also.

In the result, this revision has no merit and is dismissed accordingly.