The court must consider whether the Public Prosecutor has applied his mind as a free agent, uninfluenced by irrelevant and extraneous considerations, before granting consent to the withdrawal of a case.

J. DAS, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a suo motu revision with a view to examine the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dt. 6-12-84 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jharsugda allowing withdrawal of G. R. case No. 974 of 1981 and as a consequence of that acquittal of the accused.

( 2 ) G. R. Case No. 974 of 1981 was registered on 7-12-81 on receipt of the F. I. R. of D. I. C. , Rengali Police Station and the charge-sheet was submitted on 20-12-82 under S. 394, I. P. C. and cognizance was taken on the same day. On 28-1-84 charge under S. 392, i. P. C. was framed against the accused and the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed for trial. Then the case proceeded for trial. On 16-3-84, it appears that 8 prosecution witnesses were present. As the accused was absent, prosecution witnesses were discharged and N. B. W. A. was issued against the accused and the bail bond was forfeited. On 8-5-84 the case was advanced and a petition for withdrawal of the case was filed. The petition for withdrawal appears to have been written by the Asstt. Public Prosecutor, Jharsuguda. On 20-10-84 the Public Prosecutor himself filed a petition for withdrawal of the case. On 6-12-84 the learned S. D. J. M. , Jharsuguda passed the impugned order allowing the withdrawal of the case. Hence the suo motu revision has been instituted.

( 3 ) THE substantive portion of the petition of the Asstt. Public Prosecutor dt. 8-5-84 is as follows :"that the Govt. Pleader has directed the A. P. P. , Jharsuguda for withdrawal of the above case under wireless message No. 127 dt. 30-3-84 and No. 187 dt. 25-4-85. "the petition which appears to have been written by the Public Prosecutor, Sambalpur in his own hand and filed by him is as follows :"the prosecution submits as follows : 1. That the above case has been registered and C. S. was submitted against the accused under S. 332, I. P. C. and it is sub judice. 2. That while submitting charge-sheet, the major defects could not be noticed and rectified and C. S. was submitted for which the case is likely to end in acquittal. 3. That the prosecution as such wants to withdraw the case on administrative ground. It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant permission to the prosecution to withdraw the case, and accordingly the accused may be set at liberty. "

( 4 ) THE impugned order dt. 6-12-84 is as follows :"the accused is absent. N. B. W. not back. The Public Prosecutor, Sambalpur on 20-10-84 has filed a petition to withdraw the case under S. 321, Cr. P. C. In the said petition it has been mentioned that the C. S. has been submitted under S. 332, I. P. C. But in fact C. S. has been submitted u/s. 392, I. P. C. Moreover, the P. P. has submitted that some major defects are there for which the case is likely to end in acquittal for which the prosecution wants to withdraw the case on administrative grounds. However, heard the A. P. P. The petition of the P. P. is allowed. The accused is acquitted u/s. 321 (b), Cr. P. C. since in this case charge has already been framed. Send the case record to the C. J. M. , Sambalpur for approval. Recall the N. B. W. "

( 5 ) IT is seen from the petitions of the A. P. P. and the P. P. , Sambalpur that they have not stated any reasons for withdrawal. The A. P. P. has simply stated that he was praying for withdrawal on the direction of the P. P. The petition of the P. P. is misconceived as he has stated that charge sheet was submitted against the accused under S. 332, I. P. C. although the charge-sheet has been actually submitted under S. 392, I. P. C. In any case, charge has been framed against the accused under S. 392, I. P. C. and cognizance was also taken under that Section and hence the petition of the P. P. is undoubtedly misconceived and incorrect. The P. P. has not given any reason for withdrawal. The learned S. D. J. M. has also passed an order mechanically and without applying his judicial mind and the order does not contain any