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