Wanchoo, C.J.—This is a revision by Sri Amar Narain Mathur against the order of Sri P.D. Pande, Special Judge, dated the 19th of January, 1951, by which he allowed the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution of five criminal cases, which were pending in that Court. Consequent upon such withdrawal, the accused in those five cases have been discharged. The contention of the applicant is that the Special Judge did not apply his mind to the facts of the cases when he consented to the withdrawal of the Public Prosecutor, and, therefore, this Court should interfere and set aside the order of the Special Judge.

2. The opposite parties in this revision are the State of Rajasthan and seven other persons. A brief history of the facts, which have led to this revision, will be useful in understanding the case. His Highness the Rajpramukh promulgated the Rajasthan Special Criminal Courts Ordinance (No. XLIV of 1949) on the 8th of December, 1949. Under that Ordinance a Special Criminal Court was created on the 3rd of January, 1950, for the whole of Rajasthan, and Shri Pande was appointed Judge to this Court. On the 5th of January, 1950, five cases were allotted for trial of this Court under section 5 of the Ordinance. The first of these cases was against Shri Jai Narain Vyas, who was, once upon a time, Chief Minister of the former Jodhpur State, and his Personal Assistant, Shri Shyam Krishna Vyas. This is now case No. 8 of 1950 of the Special Judges Court. The second case was against Shri Mathura Das Mathur, former Education Minister of the former Jodhpur State, and Shri M.L. Sanghi. This is now case No. 6 of 1950. The third case was against Shri Dwarka Das Purohit, former Finance Minister of the former Jodhpur State, and Shri M. L. Sanghi. This is now case No. 7 of 1950. The fourth case was against Shri Mathura Das Mathur and his Personal Assistant, Shri Kapur Chand Mangal, and it is No. 9 of 1950 now. The last case was against Shri Dwarka Das Purohit and his Personal Assistant, Sri Mukand Lal, and is No. 2 of 1950 now. These cases were under various sections of the Penal Code, and some evidence was taken in one of them. The accused, however, took the objection that the Rajasthan Special Criminal Courts Ordinance was ultra vires after the coming into force of the Constitution of India. This objection was disallowed, and they had gone to the Supreme Court of India, and the proceedings before the Special Judge were stayed. In the meantime, the State of Rajasthan decided to withdraw the prosecutions, and consequently an application was made on the 19th of January, 1951, under section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Shri M. R. Purohit, who had been appointed Public Prosecutor for these cases on the 18th of January, 1951. The petition in the Supreme Court had been withdrawn on the 16th of January, I951, and the stay order had been vacated. The applications for withdrawal in all the live cases were in the same terms, and the Special Judge was requested to consent to the withdrawal of the Public Prosecutor from these cases "on the ground of inexpediency of prosecution for reasons of State." The Special Judge gave his consent to the withdrawal on the 19th of January, 1951, and thereafter discharged the seven opposite parties other than the State of Rajasthan.

3. Mr. S.P. Sinha, counsel for Shri Amar Narain, began to argue the petition as if Shri Amar Narain was a party to the cases, whereupon a preliminary objection was raised by Mr. Pathak on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, and his contention was that the applicant had no locus standi, and this Court should not. therefore, hear his counsel. The argument was that the applicant, Shri Amar Narain, was a complete stranger to the proceedings, and had, therefore, no right to apply to this Court in revision. It was further urged that in a criminal case started at the instance of the State a stranger had no right to apply to this Court in revision when the Public Prosecutor had decide

Click Here to Read the rest of this document