From the Judgment and Order dated 17 3 1978 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Revision No.
2 and 3 in this petition under s. 411 I.P.C. and one Ashok Kumar under s. 380, I.P.C. During the pendency of the criminal case, the Assistant Public Prosecutor applied for withdrawal from prosecution under s. 321, Cr.
It was alleged that in carrying out the instructions the Assistant Public Prosecutor did number apply an independent mind.
The companyrt nevertheless accepted the request of the Assistant Public Prosecutor and directed acquittal of Hussan Lal, while companytinuing the case against the remaining two accused.
The order was unsuccessfully assailed in revision before the High Court by the petitioner.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition Criminal No.
181/77 L. Kohli, S.K. Sabharwal and Subhash Chander for the Petitioner.
Prem Malhotra for Respondent No.
Eventually, charges were framed by the trial companyrt against one Hussan Lal, a jeweller, and one Madan Lal, an alleged companylaborator respondents Nos.
The police, on information being laid, searched and recovered the property.
The house of the petitioner is said to have been burgled and he alleges that he lost many valuables.
On the companyrt requiring a fuller application the Assistant Public Prosecutor made a fresh and more detailed petition for withdrawal which was eventually granted by the trial companyrt, despite the petitioners remonstrance that the withdrawal was prompted by the political influence wielded by Hussan Lal leading to instructions from high quarters to the Assistant Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the case companycerning that accused.
N. Sachthey for Respondent No.
2076 of 1978.
P.C. on the ground that on fresh investigation by a senior officer the alleged search and seizure were discovered to be a frame up by the companycerned police officer in order to pressurise the accused Hussan Lal to withdraw a certain civil litigation.
The Order of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J. What companystrains us to explain at some length our reasons for rejection of leave to appeal in this case is the desideratum that every executive challenge to justice in action is a call to the companyrt to strengthen public companyfidence by infusing functional freshness into the relevant law sufficient to overpower the apprehended evil.
Undaunted by that dismissal, he has moved this companyrt under Art.
