P.D. RAJAN, J.

1. This revision petition is preferred against the order in Crl. M.A. 1328/2007 in S.C. No.138/2004 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc-I, Kasaragod. He was charge sheeted in S.C.No.138/2004 before Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) I, Kasaragod for having committed an offence punishable under section 341, 324, 307 r/w. 34 IPC. The charge against him was that on 15.5.2001 at 10 O' clock, while the injured, who are respondents 3 and 4 standing near Beal store shop on the side of Kizhur Juma Mazjid road, A1 and A2 wrongfully restrained the injured and A1 assaulted the injured (the 4th respondent) with a sharp edged knife with the intention to kill him, as a result, he sustained serious injuries on the face and on the stomach. When 3rd respondent intervened the accused attacked him and he also sustained serious injury. Both of them were removed to hospital. In this incident, Bakel Police registered a Crime No.196/2001 and after completing investigation, laid charge before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kasaragod, from there it was committed to Sessions Court for trial.

2. During trial, the learned Public Prosecutor filed a petition under section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to withdraw the case on the ground that the injured and the accused are maintaining cordial relationship in the locality and in the interest of justice warrant to withdraw the petition from further prosecution. The learned Judge, after considering Crl. M.P. No. 1328/2007 dismissed the petition filed under section 321 of Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by that, the accused preferred this revision.

3. The revisional jurisdiction under section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') is conferred as a supervisory jurisdiction in order to correct any illegality or irregularity arising from any sentence or order passed by the courts below. The High Court can examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior criminal Court situate within its local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed by that Court. The error, occurred from any misconception of law or misconception of any fact or misreading of any evidence is also a relevant ground for interference. This power conferred by the Statute is a discretionary one and can be exercised only in rare occasion when it feels that there is miscarriage of justice.

4. According to Section 321 of the Code, the Public Prosecutor or the Asst. Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may withdraw from the prosecution of any proceedings with the consent of the Court at any time before the judgment is pronounced. The withdrawal from the prosecution is a stepping back from the prosecution or refrain from conducting further prosecution. When Court is consent to withdraw from the prosecution, the accused person shall be discharged or acquitted under section 321(a) and (b). If withdrawal is made before a charge has been framed, the accused shall be discharged in respect of such offence or offences. If it is made after charge has been made or when under this Code no charge is required, he shall be acquitted in respect of such offence or offences.

5. The present grievance of the revision petitioner is that the incident was occurred long back due to political rivalry. The injured are members of Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) and the accused is a member of the Indian National League (INL). The incident was occurred during general election campaign of 2001. The statement given to the Police also discloses that the incident occurred due to political rivalry. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that both parties merged together and functioning as a single party. The IUML and INL merged together into a single party and now they are working as a single party. The notice was served on the injured, who are respondents 3 and 4 in this