What is the role of a Magistrate or a Judge while considering an application filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor or Public Prosecutor to withdraw the prosecution under section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? Is it adjudicatory or supervisory? Is it for the court to assess the evidence to discover whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal or is it sufficient to see whether the application is made in good faith in the interest of public policy and justice and not to thwart or stifle the process of law.

2. All the revision petitions are filed by the State challenging the order passed by Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram dismissing the applications filed under section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Assistant Public Prosecutor. All these cases relate to the incidents which occurred during procession by political parties opposing the policy of the Government of the day and do not involve major offences.

3. Section 321 of Code of Criminal Procedure reads:-

Withdrawal from prosecution:- The Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may, with the consent of the Court, at any time before the judgment is pronounced, withdraw from the prosecution of any person either generally or in respect of any one or more of the offences for which he is tried; and, upon such withdrawal—

(a) If it is made before a charge has been framed, the accused shall be discharged in respect of such offence or offences;

(b) if it is made after a charge has been framed, or when under this Code no charge is required, he shall be acquitted in respect of such offence or offences;

Provided that where such offence—

(i) was against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends, or

(ii) was investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), or

(iii) involved the misappropriation or destruction of, or damage to, any property belonging to the Central Government, or

(iv) was committed by a person in the service of the Central Government while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, and the prosecutor in charge of the case has not been appointed by the Central Government he shall not, unless he has been permitted by the Central Government to do so, move the Court for its consent to withdraw from the prosecution and the Court shall, before according consent, direct the Prosecutor to produce before it the permission granted by the Central Government to withdraw from the prosecution."

Section 321 does not give any guideline regarding the grounds on which a withdrawal application can be made. Such guidelines are settled by various decisions of the Apex Court. The test to be applied is settled by the majority decision of the Constitution Bench in Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar (AIR 1987 SC 877). Comparing the provisions of Section 321 with Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure dealing with compounding of offences, it was held that the sub sections of Section 321 use the expression "with the permission of the court and with the consent of the court" which are more or less ejusdem generis and on a fair reading of the sub sections it can be safely presumed that Sections confer only a supervisory power on the court in the matter of compounding of offences in the manner indicated therein with the safeguard that the accused does not by unfair or deceitful means, secure a composition of the offences. Since Section 321 finds a place in the same chapter immediately after section 320, it was held that it should take its colour from the immediately preceding section and in holding that this section which is a kindred to S.320 which contemplates consent by the Court only in a supervisory manner and not essentially in an adjudicatory manner and the grant of consent not depending upon a detailed assessment of the weight or volume of evidence to see the