IMPORTANT POINT
Application under Section 321 Cr. P.C., 1973 for withdrawal from prosecution charges under TADA, 1987 on the basis of recommendations of High Power State s Review Committee will be accepted by Designated Court if the PP satisfies the Court of the existence of a ground which permits withdrawal from prosecution under Section 321 Cr. P.C., giving due weight to opinion formed by PP on the basis of recommendation of the High Power Committee.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 321-Withdrawal from prosecution charges under TADA, 1987-Public Prosecutor simply stating that it was on the basis of recommendations of State s High Power Committee constitute to review TADA cases on directions of Supreme Court-Designated Court rejected on the ground that withdrawal cannot be permitted mechanically-Writ petition under Public Interest and Appeals by special leave-Whether Designated Court was right ? (Yes)-(Para 7)--On recommendation of Review Committee, P.P. should satisfy himself that it is a fit case for withdrawal from prosecution-Then satisfy designated Court of the existence of a ground which permits withdrawal from prosecution under Section 301 Cr. P.C. (Para 9)- Direction in Kartar Singh s case clarified.
       Held : The observations in Kartar Singh have to be understood in the context in which they were made. It was observed that a review of the cases should be made by a High Power Committee to ensure that there was no misuse of the stringent provisions of the TADA Act and any case in which resort to the TADA Act was found to be unwarranted, the necessary remedial measures should be taken. The Review Committee is expected to perform its functions in this manner. If the recommendation of the Review Committee, based on the material present, is, that resort to provisions of the TADA Act is unwarranted for any reason which permits withdrawal from prosecution for those offences, a suitable application made under Section 321 Cr.P.C. on that ground has to be considered and decided by the Designated Court giving due weight to the opinion formed by the Public Prosecutor on the basis of the recommendation of the High Power Committee. (Para 10)
       It has also to be borne in mind that the initial invocation of the stringent provisions of the TADA Act is itself subject to sanction of the Government and, therefore, the revised opinion of the Government formed on the basis of the recommendation of the High Power Committee ater scrutiny of each case should not be lightly disregarded by the court except for weighty reasons such as malafides or manifest arbitrariness. The worth of the material to support the charge under the TADA Act and the evidence which can be produced, is likely to be known to the prosecuting agency and, therefore, mere existence of prima facie material to support the framing of the charge should not by itself be treated as sufficient to refuse the consent for withdrawal from prosecution. It is in this manner an application made to withdraw the charges of offences under the TADA Act pursuant to review of a case by the Review Committee has to be considered and decided by the Designated Courts. (Para 11)
       Held Finally : The applications made under Section 321 Cr.P.C. not having been decided on the basis indicated above, fresh applications made in all such cases pursuant to the recommendations of the Review Committee or the revised opinion of the Government have to be considered and decided by the Designated Courts in the manner indicated above. (Para 12)

JUDGMENT

J.S. Verma, J.-Leave granted in special leave petitions.

2. In Kartar Singh etc. v. State of Punjab etc.1, the Constitution Bench while upholding the constitutional validity of the provisions in the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short "the TADA Act") except Section 22 threin, noticed the general perception that there was some misuse of the stringent provisions by the authorities concerned. To prevent any possible misuse of the stringent provisions, the Constitution Bench suggested a strict review of these cases in its observations made as under :-

"In order to ensure higher level of scrutiny and and applicability of TADA Act, there must be a screening Committee or a Review Committee constituted by the Central Government consisting of the Home Secretary, Law Secretary and other secretaries concerned of the various Departments to review all the TADA cases instituted by the Central Government as well as to have a quarterly administrative review, reviewing the States action in the application of the TADA provisions in the respective States, and the incidental questions arising in relation thereto. Similarly, there must be a Screening or Review Committee at the State level constituted by the respective States consisting of the Chief Secretary, Home Secretary, Law Secretary, Director General of Police (Law and order) and other officials as the respective Government may think it fit, to review the action of the enforcing authorities under the Act and screen the cases registered under the provisions of the Act and decide the further course of action in every matter and so no. (at page 683)

3. It appears that in compliance with the above observations of this Court in Kartar Singh (supra), a Screening Committee or a Review Committee was constituted by the Government in several States including Delhi. A High Power Committee under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary of Delhi reviewed the prosecutions made under the TADA Act and the Government of Delhi conveyed its approval to the Director of Prosecution, Delhi for deletion of the charges under the TADA Act in the specified criminal cases pending before the Designated Court. The learned Special Additional Public Prosecutor filed applications in the Designated Court for withdrawal of charges under the TADA Act in all those cases pending in the Designated Court. It appears that the only reason assigned for withdrawal of charges under the TADA Act by the learned Public Prosecutor was the recommendation of the High Power Comittee which was constituted to review the cases in accordance with the observations of this Court in Kartar Singh. The Designated Court has dismissed those applications taking the view that administrative decisions cannot interfere with the working of the judicial system. Apparently, the view taken is that a mere administrative decision taken on the basis of the recommendation of the Review Committee is not sufficient to permit withdrawal of a criminal prosecution pending in a court of law.

4. The appeals by special leave challenge the orders of the Designated Court and the writ petition by an advocate, in public interest, is for a direction to the Designated Court to permit withdrawal of all prosecutions recommended by the Review Committee.

5. The scope of Section 321 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P.C.) dealing wiht withdrawal from prosecution is settled by decisions of this Court. In State of Orissa v. Chandrika Mohapatra and Others2, the scope was indicated as under :-

"Now the law as to when consent to withdrawal of prosecution should be accorded under Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Proceudre is well settled as a result of several decisions of this Court. The first case in which this question came up for consideration was State of Bihar v. Ram Naresh Pandey, 1957 SCR 279... It was pointed out by this Court in that case that in granting consent to withdrawal from proseuction the court u

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1996 Supreme(SC) 436

Cases Referred (3)