( 1 ) THIS revision is filed against the order passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nuzvid in Crl. MP No. 88 of 1996 in SC No. 179 of 1994 permitting the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the prosecution in SC No. 179 of 1994. While the SC was pending, the Public Prosecutor filed a petition under Section 321 Cr. PC proposing to withdraw the case. Thereupon the learned Assistant Sessions Judge passed the following order:"heard. Permitted. Destroy if any property after appeal time. "this order is challenged in this revision.

( 2 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Public Prosecutor is the prime custodian to take a decision with regard to the withdrawal of the criminal case on the advise of the State. As per the Counsel the Public Prosecutor can take an independent decision and he should not be governed or directed by the executive authority. He also submitted that the Court cannot also act mechanically; it should apply its mind and take decision suitably whether public interest would be served by the act of withdrawal of the case by the Public Prosecutor. Such consideration has not been gone into in this case by the Public Prosecutor