The Public Prosecutor has the sole authority to make an application for withdrawal under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the court's primary consideration in granting permission for withdrawal is the interest of administration of justice.

1. This Rule is directed against an order being Order No. 23 dated June 25, 1979, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Second Court, Murshidabad in Sessions Case No. 170 of 1977. The accused opp. parties were charged under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and one of the accused was charged under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code separately. There was also a charge under Section 6(3) of the Indian Explosives Act against all the accused persons. As the offences are sessions triable the accused persons were committed to the court of session by the learned Magistrate. After the charges were framed in the Sessions Court an application was made by the learned Public Prosecutor under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for permission to withdraw the case against the accused persons. The application made by the learned Public Prosecutor in charge of the case was to the following effect. "That, being instructed by my client and satisfied with the grounds of withdrawal, the Public Prosecutor Murshidabad puts in the petition seeking Your Honour's consent to the withdrawal from the prosecution in the above case with regard to all offences against the accused persons on the following amongst other grounds : For that in the interest of administration of justice the consent be given. For that the continuation of the case may not serve the administration of justice inasmuch as the social normalcy may not be furthered thereby. For that in the changed political situation the change of minds of the accused persons involved is desired." Upon this application being made the learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned order. The considerations that weighed with the learned Judge are firstly that in the interest of administration of justice it was necessary that the permission be given to withdraw the case against the accused persons. The learned Judge looked into the medical report and was satisfied that although the charges were under the Explosive Substances Act and also under Section 307, of the Indian Penal Code, none of the injuries that were sustained by the victim, were very serious injuries, in fact they were simple in nature and could be caused by some hard and blunt substance. It was also submitted on behalf of the Public Prosecutor that the incident originated over a dispute in connection with land and that in order to bring about normal relationship between the parties and restore normalcy in the locality it was necessary that the case should be withdrawn against the accused persons. The learned Judge also found that it was a fit case where permission should be granted. Accordingly he acquitted the accused persons upon granting permission under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. This order of acquittal is challenged by Mrs. Mukti Moitra. Mrs. Moitra has submitted that in view of the various decisions of this Court as well as of the Supreme Court the permission to withdraw the case has been given on a misconception of the law. Firstly, she has argued, that the Public Prosecutor had stated in his application that it was his client who had instructed him to withdraw the case. Who his client is, does not appear from the petition or what the clients' instructions are have not been stated in the petition. The Public Prosecutor however considered the materials before him and was of the view, that in the interest of administration of justice it was necessary that the case may be withdrawn for which permission was sought for by him. He was also guided by other public considerations for instance the question of restoring the normal relationship between the parties in the locality.

3. Mrs. Moitra has submitted that one of the grounds for withdrawal is that due to changed political situation a change of mind is desired. This means that there is a political reason for withdrawal of the case and that should not weigh either with the Public Prosecutor or with the Court for granting