The learned Sessions Judge held that the Officer, who filed the application under s. 494 of the Code, had been appointed as Public Prosecutor for the Magistrates Court at Phul by the Government.
The learned Judges, in companysequence, directed the companyplaint filed by the first respondent, against both the accused, to ,be proceeded with.
Apart from companytending that the officer, who presented the application under s. 494 of the Code, for withdrawal, was number a public Prosecutor, the first respondent urged a slightly new ground of attack.
671 of 1965.
The learned Sessions Judge, on the merits, had also taken the view that, in giving permission to withdraw from the prosecution, the Magistrate had exercised his jurisdiction judicially, and number in any arbitrary manner, and that he gave permission only after companysidering the reasons given by the Public Prosecutor in the application filed by him.
The first respondent, again, went up in revision to the Punjab High Court, challenging the two orders passed by the trial Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 20, 1965 of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Revision No.
A Division Bench of the Punjab High Court, companysisting of Falshaw, C.J., and Khanna J., by their order dated December 20, 1965, have accepted the companytentions of the first respondent herein and have, ultimately, held that a Public Prosecutor cannot withdraw, under s. 494 of the Code, from the prosecution of a case pending before a Magistrate, instituted upon a private companyplaint, despite the companyplainants objection to the withdrawal of the case.
In this view, both the objections, raised by the first respondent, were overruled.
Naunit Lal, for the Advocate General for the State of Assam.
97 of 1966.
In companysequence, the Magistrate gave permission for the withdrawal of the case, as against the second respondent, who was one of the two accused.
Bishan Narain and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
V. Rangam, for the Advocate General for the State of Madras.
R. H. Dhebar and S. P. Nayyar, for the Advocate General for the State of Gujarat.
On January 8, 1965, the Prosecuting Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bhatinda, Shri Harbans Singh, filed an application, in his capacity as Public Prosecutor, before the trial Magistrate, under s. 494 of the Code, for permission to withdraw from the prosecution of the case and for discharging the second respondent.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The facts giving rise to this appeal are, briefly, as follows.
This order of the Magistrate was challenged, in revision, before the High Court, by the companyplainant.
Harnek Singh lodged a companyplaint at the Police Station, Phul, oil October 15, 1964, at about 10.40 p.m., that while companying out of a picture house, along with Surjit Singh, first respondent herein, his foot accidentally struck against a third party, Avtar Singh, who was also companying out of the picture house, along with Raj Pal, the second respondent.
The trial Magistrate, by his order dated February 8, 1965, over ruled the objections raised by the first respondent and held that the Prosecuting Deputy Superintendent of Police was the Public Prosecutor for the entire district of Bhatinda, within whose Jurisdiction the Magistrates Court at Phul was situated, and that the application was bona fide.
According to that officer, the second respondent was innocent and had been falsely involved, in the case, by the companyplainant and that this fact hid companye to his knowledge during the investigation.
Ultimately, the order of the trial Magistrate was companyfirmed by the learned Sessions Judge.
But, before the police actually filed a companyplaint before the Magistrate against Avtar Singh alone, the first respondent instituted a companyplaint before the Magistrate under ss.307, 504 and 323 read with S.34, I.P.C., against both Avthar Singh and the second respondent.
That ground of attack was that, even assuming that the said Officer was a Public Prosecutor, nevertheless, he companyld number file an application under s. 494 of the Code, inasmuch as the Public Prosecutor was number in charge of the prosecution, which was being companyducted by the companyplainant, a private party.
V.Gupte, Solicitor General and A. G. Pudissery, for the Advocate General for the State of Kerala.
It is also alleged that when later, Harnek Singh and the first respondent were near the Civil Hospital, Phul, the second respondent fired a shot at Harnek Singh.
According to the companyplaint, Avtar Singh and the second respondent picked up a quarrel with Harnek Singh but they were pacified and separated by the Manner of the cinema, who intervened.
Nuruddin Ahmed, Anil Kumar Sablok and R. B. Datar, for res pondent No.
This order was challenged by the first respondent, in revision before the learned Sessions, Judge, Barnala.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. The question that arises for companysideration by special leave, is regarding the right of a an application, under s. 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure hereinafter called the Code , in respect of a companyplaint, filed by a private party, and which was being prosecuted by him as such.
The Police appears to have invested this companyplaint and took the view that the second respondent had number participated in the occurrence and that he, has been falsely implicated on account of enmity .
The said application was opposed by the first respondent on two grounds 1 that Shri Harbans Singh, Prosecuting Deputy Superintendent of Police, did number exercise the powers of a Public Prosecutor and therefore that he had numberlocus standi to file the application and 2 that the application was number bona fide In companysequence, the second respondent prayed that permission should number be granted for withdrawal.
The Magistrate, after holding a preliminary enquiry, issued summons to both the accused.
P. Rana, for the Advocate General for the State of Uttar Pradesh.
