Mohan Singh vs State of Haryana through Collector, Sirsa and ors.

K.P.S. Sandhu, J. (Oral)

This is a revision petition filed by five petitioners namely, Mohan Singh, Sri Bhagwan, Nand Ram, Baldev Singh and Lal Singh against the order of the judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dabwali, dated 8th December, 1983, by which he permitted the withdrawal of the case against respondents Nos. 2 to 5 on an application under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure made by the Additional Public Prosecutor.

The facts which gave rise to this revision petition are as follows. On various complaints made by different persons, an inquiry was entrusted to the Vigilance Bureau, Haryana. Shri R.S. Hooda, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Haryana, held an inquiry and came to the conclusion that the respondents had floated a bogus firm in the name of S.K. Tractors at Faridabad and that they purchased second hand spare parts of tractors and after assembling the same sold these to various persons including the aforesaid five petitioners under the mark of S.K. Tractors. The petitioners who were poor farmers raised loans from cooperative banks and purchased tractors from the respondent''s firm. The respondents sold those tractors as original and new ones. The Deputy Superintendent of Police also secured the reports of the experts on the point. According to these reports of the experts, the tractors were not new ones and not in a proper working condition and that there were serious mechanical defects which could not exist in new tractors. The Deputy Superintendent of Police further found that no such firm as S.K. Tractors ever existed. On the basis of this report, a case was registered at Police Station, State Vigilance Bureau, Hissar, under section 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code vide first information report No. 26 dated 6th November 1981, against respondents Nos. 2 to 5. The challan was put in the Court.

2A. The learned trial Magistrate, after hearing both the prosecution and the defence, proceeded to frame charges against these respondents under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code on 11th September, 1982. The respondents approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the charges against them but the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 22nd October, 1982.

The Additional District Attorney in charge of the prosecution of the aforesaid case made an application dated 23rd August, 1983, before the learned Magistrate under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the withdrawal of the prosecution against the respondents. Although the trial Magistrate came to a finding that it could not be said that no criminal case existed against the respondents but he allowed the prayer of the Additional District Attorney on the ground that the withdrawal of the case against the respondents was in public interest. The trial Magistrate while illustration the public interest observed that the respondents were new entrants to heavy industry and some manufacturing defects were bound to be present in the products of new entrants to any business and thus if a new entrant met with the present fate then that would affect the new entrants to heavy industry. Firstly, this observation of the learned trial Magistrate is not based on any material. In fact, the allegations in the first information report are that no firm by the name of S.K. Tractors in fact exists and that the whole affair is a bogus one. Secondly, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the withdrawal of the case against the respondents serves any public interest. According to a test laid down by the Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Subhash Chander v. Chandigarh Administration and others. AIR 1980 SC 423, the consent of the Court under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as a condition for withdrawal is imposed as check on the exercise of that power. Consent will be given only if the public justice in the larger sense is promoted rather that subverted by such withdrawal. It appears that the learned trial Magistrate has exercised the discretion in a perfunctory manner, not satisfying the test laid down by Hon''ble the Supreme Court. Consequentially, this revision petition is allowed and the case is sent back to trial Court for decision according to law. The trial Magistrate is further directed to expedite the trial.