Withdrawal of charges under section 321 Cr. P. C. should be allowed only if the court is satisfied that such withdrawal would serve the administration of justice.

1. CHARGE was framed against eighteen accused under sections 14813071149 I. P. C. Thereafter the Public Prosecutor, Murshidabad, put in an application for withdrawal under section 321 Cr. P. C. The prayer was allowed by the learned. Sessions judge. One Jerfan Ask, petitioner, filed the present application for revision.

2. IT has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that in this case a grave offence was committed because actually gun was fired. The Public prosecutor filed an application for withdrawal at the instance of the State Government after the charge was framed. He did not apply his mind to the facts of the case. The prayer for withdrawal was illegally allowed and the same can not be sustained in law.

The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused opposite parties has stated that though the application was filed by the Public Prosecutor for withdrawal, the learned Sessions judge went through the first information report and the statement of the witnesses. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case he allowed the prayer for withdrawal. The applicant has no locus standi to file the present application. He has referred to an unreported decision where borooah, J. spoke for the Bench in a recent case The case in 26 CWN 880, jagat versus Kalimuddin, has been dated to show that in such cases the court must give its reason for the order of withdrawal. Here the learned Sessions judge gave full reasons for passing the order in question. 19

3. THE cases of Sankarnarayan versus Balkrishna in 1972 Cr. L. J. 301, of State of Punjab y. Surjit Singh 1969 (1) S. C. J. 550 and of State of Orissa versus Chandrika in 1977 Cr. L. J. 773 have been cited. It has been contended that it will appear from those cases that the court should allow withdrawal for the administration of justice. Here that test has been satisfied because the learned Sessions Judge considered the case in all its aspects and allowed the petition for withdrawal. In view of the words used in section 321 cr. P. O. the withdrawal may be permitted at any stage before the judgment is pronounced. Here the learned judge allowed the prayer for withdrawal after the charge was framed and he acquitted the accused. The latest case of Chintamam Mondal versus State of West Bengal in 82 CWN 578 has been cited to show that when the court grants leave to the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution, the ends of justice must always be kept in mind by it. Hence there is no justification to interfere with the order in question. The learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the State adopted this reasoning.

4. IN the case of Sankarnarayan versus Balkrishna, (Supra), the Assistant Sessions Judge allowed the prayer for withdrawal at the instance of the public Prosecutor. Thereafter, the Maniaging Director of the Firm in question, who is a third party, filed the application before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allowed the prayer, set aside the order of the Assistant Sessions judge and of the High Court and remitted the case for trial according to law. So this case is an authority for the proposition that in such case a third party can also move the appropriate court if he considers that the order of withdrawal was illegally passed. There is also another aspect of the case. It appears from the first paragraph of the petition in question that the petitioner was also injured. Hence if this Court is satisfied that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is illegal, then this Court can so motu set aside that order. Moreover, I have already held that the petitioner has locus standi to file this application.

The principles for such withdrawal have been laid down by the supreme Court in the case of Sankarnarayan versus Balkrishna (Supra). This decision was first followed by Mr. Justice A. C. Gupta in the case of bansilal versus Chandan Mai in AIR 1976 S. C. 370 at page 372. This principle was followed by Mr. Justice K. Iyer in the case in AIR 1977 S