These revisions are directed against the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punalur, on S.T. Case Nos. 38/1987 and 48/1987, dismissing the applications filed u/S. 321, Cr.P.C. by the Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of those cases. The Magistrate held :

".... complainant has not filed any petition to withdraw the complaint. This is purely a complaint filed by the Food Inspector and APP was authorised to conduct the case only. So it cannot be said that APP is in charge of the case. The locus standi of APP is only that of a counsel who appears for his client. Without the consent of the client, APP cannot file a petition stating that he is withdrawing from Prosecution. The petition filed by APP cannot stand in the eye of the law.

xx xx xx xx xx xx xx

It is for the complainant to decide whether to withdraw the complaint. He has not done so. Hence I find that this petition by APP is only to be rejected, since he has no locus standi."

It was also observed that the reasons given for withdrawal from prosecution were unsatisfactory.

2. Petitioners were accused 2 to 4 in the above cases which were laid by the Food Inspector of Punalur Municipality for o