R. Basant, J.

Did the learned Sessions Judge travel beyond the scope of his jurisdiction or act incorrectly in withholding the consent for withdrawal of a prosecution against the petitioners who face indictment, inter alia, under S.3 of the P.D.P.P. Act and Ss. 357,353 and 307 read with S.149 of the Indian Penal Code? This is the crucial question that arises for consideration in this revision petition.

2. Fundamental facts are not in dispute. The prosecution was launched and cognizance was taken on the basis of a final report filed by the police. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners/ accused, 46.in number, who are leaders and workers of the D.Y.F.I, belonging to the L.D.F. which was in opposition at the relevant time, were members of an unlawful assembly of persons. Their common object was to disrupt a meeting which was scheduled to be held at the Tiruvalla Service Co-operative Bank. The Minister for Co-operation was to conduct the inauguration of the strong room and counter of the said Co-operative bank. The petitioners and the political group to which they belong had, certain objections on political reasons against the Minister concerned. This was allegedly the reason which prompted them to take the decision to obstruct and disrupt the meeting which was scheduled to take place on 13.6.1995. The police had prior information about the programme as also the intention of the accused persons to disrupt such meeting. The police had made very effective arrangements to ensure the safety.and security of the Minister as also the orderly conduct of the function. There was substantial police personnel at the venue of the meeting. The Superintendent of Police of the District (C. W.1) was personally present along with a posse of policemen including CWs. 2 to 15 to oversee and ensure order, peace and tranquility. The effective action taken by the police allegedly ensured that the function was not disrupted. Thereupon, the ire of the petitioners allegedly turned against the police who had discharged their duty satisfactorily and ensured peaceful conduct of the function and the safety of the Minister. The unlawful assembly of persons led by the accused allegedly attempted to break the police cordon and march. When they were stopped, the members of the unlawful assembly turned violent and resorted to blatant violence. Crude and unrefined weapons, stones, were made use of. Stones were thrown at the policemen. They suffered injuries. The alleged common object of the unlawful assembly and their attempt was allegedly to cause the death of policemen including CWs.1 to 15. The victims suffered simple hurt. The unlawful assembly allegedly indulged in wanton destruction of buses belonging to the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation resulting in loss to public property of about Rs. 6,000/-. This is the case of the prosecution.

3. The learned Magistrate, below whom the final report was filed, after observing all statutory requirements, committed the case to the Court of Session. It is submitted at the Bar that the charges have already been framed against the accused under Ss.143, 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 324 and 307 and S.3(2)(c) of the P.D.D.P. Act read with S. 149 of the IPC.

4. At that stage, the Additional Public Prosecutor in charge of the prosecution filed an application seeking consent of the Court to withdraw from prosecution under S.321 of the Cr.P.C.

5. In the said petition, it is stated that: "The incident was happened due to political rivalry between the parties. CWs.1 to 15 are Police Officials of Pathanamthitta District and the accused 1 to 46 are Trade Union Leaders, Social Workers, and political groups. The issue has been amicably settled by the initiative of mediators and they have given a warning to the accused to keep peace, discipline and not to repeat such incidents. Now they are keeping harmony. The accused are the residents of various places at Tiru valla and Mallappally Taluk. If the trial is continued, there i