SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1986 Supreme(SC) 347

A.P.SEN, B.C.RAY
State Of Punjab – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent


Advocates:
A.Subhashini, ANIL GUPTA, N.L.Kakkar, R.S.SODHI, S.Madhusudan Rao

Judgment

JUDGMENT:- We are satisfied on hearing learned counsel for the parties that .the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. It is the duty of the Court while granting permission to the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution under S. 494 Criminal P.C. 1898, to satisfy itself that the executive function of the Public Prosecutor has not been improperly exercised or that it is not an attempt to interfere with the normal course of justice for illegitimate reasons or purposes. The ultimate guiding consideration while granting a permission to withdraw from the prosecution must always be the interest of administration of justice and that is the touchstone on which the question must be determined whether the prosecution should be allowed to withdraw. The Public Prosecutor may withdraw from the prosecution of a case not merely on the ground of paucity of evidence but also in order to further the broad ends of public justice, and such broad ends of public justice may well include appropriate social, economic and political purposes.

2. In the present cases, the proceedings were still in their initial stages and the State Government took a policy decision that in all cas


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top