The main legal point established is that the Public Prosecutor has the prerogative to decide on withdrawal from prosecution, and the Court's role is supervisory. Additionally, withdrawal can be justified even with sufficient evidence, citing public interest and political vendetta. The Court also clarified that a third party has no locus standi in criminal proceedings under S.321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

This Revision Petition by the State of Kerala is directed against an Order of the Special Judge (Idamalayar Investigations) Ernakulam, declining consent to withdraw from prosecution of sixth accused in CC1/91. Twenty-two persons were charged with Offences punishable under Ss.120-B, 161,409,420,430,301 and 201 read with S.109 of the Indian Penal Code, and also under S.5(2) read with S.5(1)(c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The allegation was that respondents, 1, 2 and 5 to 13 entered into a conspiracy to award a contract to the remaining accused, with a view to benefit themselves and the contractors, causing loss to the State Exchequer. Accused No.l was the Minister for Electricity, A4 the Power Secretary, and A2, A5 and A7 to A13 other public servants, at the material time.

2. The Public Prosecutor in charge of the case moved Crl. M.P.No.79/92 to withdraw from the prosecution against the sixth accused. The Leader of Opposition in the Kerala Legislative Assembly, Shri. V.S. Achuthanandan sought impleadment in that petition, claiming an interest in the matter. The court below neither allowed, nor refused impleadment. Yet, accepting the contentions of the non-party, consent was refused. Shri.V.S. Achuthanandan filed Crl.M.P.No.2449/92 before this Court, seeking impleadment in these proceedings.

3. Though withdrawal was sought on the ground of insufficiency of evidence, other grounds like considerations of public policy, and need to sustain the morale of the civil services, were pressed into service before this Court. According to the State Prosecutor, prosecution was launched out of political

vendetta.

4. Paragraph (21) of the Revision Petition reads:

"It is submitted that the criminal case was initiated against the 6th respondent and others on political reasons. The Left Democratic Front Government had political score to settle with the first respondent and the launching of the prosecution was motivated by political vendetta. Ext.P1 report makes it clear that the charges levelled against the respondents will not stand on going through the entire evidence. The Public Prosecutor considered all these aspects and was himself satisfied that the respondents, especially the 6th respondent is fully innocent to the charges levelled against him. The then Director General of Police while submitting the factual report (Ext.Pl) has also considered the aspect of demoralization of senior officers, political vendetta involved in the case, and all such relevant aspects involving public policy before filing the petition for withdrawing from the prosecution."

5. The nature and width of the power exercised by the Public Prosecutor and the Court, in the matter of withdrawing from prosecution, comes into sharp focus. The locus standi of a third party or a non-party in an application under S.321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also arises for consideration.

6. The State Prosecutor submitted that the Court below misdirected itself in law, and usurped jurisdiction it did not possess. Shri. G. Ramaswamy, Senior Advocate and Sarvashri S. Narayanan Poti, G. Janardhaaa Kurup, K.L. Narasimhan, James Koshy, M. Raghava Kurup, Pirappancode V. Sreedharan Nair, K. Jagadishchandran Nair, Thomas V. Jacob and A.K. Sreenivasan, appearing for respondents endorsed the submissions made by the State Prosecutor, while Shri Kalfada Sukumaran who filed the application for impleadment supported the order of the court below.

7. The Public Prosecutor exercises a power in the nature of a prerogative. In Criminal Law, the State and its instrumentalities enjoy prerogatives, akin to crown prerogatives in England. The power exercised by the Public Prosecutor under S.321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is in the nature of such a prerogative. The State may advise him in this regard, but he must exercise his mind independently, and he ought not to act under dictation. If he acts honestly, his act cannot be questioned. The limited role of the court is only superviso