( 1 ) ONE M. Balakrishna Reddy who was the husband of the petitioner in crl. R. C. No. 630/98, M. Venkata Lakshmi and M. Radhakrishna Reddy were facing prosecution in Crime No. 33/95 under Section 498-A and 406 of I. P. C. when a Government order being G. O. Rt. No. 2087 was issued by the Home department on 7th August, 1997. Acting on this order the Public Prosecutor moved an application before the Trial Court for withdrawal from the prosecution and the Trial Court passed an order on 19-9-1997 permitting withdrawal of prosecution. The order of Trial Court has been challenged in crl. R. C. No. 630/98. After the Government order dated 7-8-1997 had been acted upon and the Trial Court had permitted withdrawal of the prosecution, the government passed another order being G. O. Rt. No. 2717 dated 21st October, 1997 withdrawing the earlier Government Order. This Government Order has been challenged in W. P. No. 28309/97 by the persons who are respondents in the revision petition.

( 2 ) COUNTERS have been filed in both the matters and the learned Counsel for the parties were heard at length.

( 3 ) WHILE considering the revision petition, it is necessary to make a referenceto certain documents on file. The Government order dated 7-8-1997 reads as under:"the Government after careful consideration of the proposal for withdrawal of case registered against Dr. M. Venkata Lakshmi and others have decided to withdraw the case in Crime No. 33/95 under sections 498-A, 406 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act 45 of 1860) of C. I. D. Police Station pending trial vide C. C. No. 126/96 on the file of iind Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nellore (now the case is transferred to XXI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Hyderabad in view of the orders of Honourable High Court in Transfer Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1021 of 1997 dated 8-7-1997 ). 2. The District Collector (s), Hyderabad District/nellore District is requested to instruct the Public Prosecutor attached to the Court concerned for filing a fresh petition under Section 321 of Criminal procedure Code, 1973 (Central Act No. 2 of 1974) for withdrawal of prosecution in the above case. A copy of the instructions so issued may be sent to Government for favour of information. "

( 4 ) THERE are two things clear from the Government order. Firstly, the Government had decided to withdraw the case in Crime No. 33/95. Secondly, it requested the District Collector to instruct the Public Prosecutor to move an application in terms of Section 321 of Cr. P. C. for withdrawal from the prosecution. After the Government order was passed, the District Collector acted and the Public Prosecutor also moved an application before the Trial court. In the opening paragraph of the application the Public Prosecutor referred to the Government order dated 7-8-1997. He further went on to say that it was suggested to him by the District Collector to move the withdrawal application but he also added that he was acquainted with the facts of the case and on the opinion of the Senior Public Prosecutor, Nellore and on his own opinion also he found that this was a fit case for withdrawal. While giving the reasons he stated that, chances for prosecution to succeed in the case were bleak. He also in his application stated that he did not find any reason to interfere with the findings arrived by the Government. Then, the Court passed the following order:"heard both sides as the Cr. No. 96/96 was closed as R. C. No. 1/97 as mistake of law and in view of G. O. Rt. No. 2087 dt. 7-8-1997. Perused contents of the petition filed by PPO. The police are permitted to withdraw the prosecution. The accused are discharged accordingly. "

( 5 ) BY this order, the Police were permitted to withdraw from the prosecution and the accused were discharged. In the light of the factual position, the points which falls for consideration by this Court are: (1) Whether the decision to withdraw was taken by the Public Prosecutor or t