V.S.Aggarwal, J.

1. This Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, dated December 15, 1992. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned trial Court granted permission to the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution and acquitted the accused persons.

2. The relevant facts can well be delineated to appreciate the question in controversy. Prem Singh was resident of village Mohan Pur and he owned some land in that village. He died issueless. He left behind his widow Gurdev Kaur. Parminder Singh alias Bhinda, Ranjit Singh alias Jit and Avtar Singh, respondent-accused were collaterals of Prem Singh. They were determined to grab the land of Prem Singh. It is alleged that in order to help the widow of Prem Singh to manage and cultivate her land, Karnail Singh and Pargat Singh started living with Gurdev Kaur. Respondent- accused in order to grab the land of Prem Singh, forged a Will regarding his estate. On that basis they took forcible possession of the land and the residential house. The house was demolished. A criminal complaint was filed against the accused in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khanna. Dalip Singh resident of village Bhammadi was a witness in those cases.

3. It has been alleged that accused-respondents approached Dalip Singh so as to prevent him from appearing as a witness on behalf of the complainant against them. Dalip Singh did not agree. A threat was given that he would be eliminated. Dalip Singh appeared as a witness in the Civil Suit in which the Will propounded by the respondents-accused was under consideration. On the night intervening 5th/6th August, 1991, Karnail Singh, his wife Ranjit Kaur, mother Mann Kaur and Gurdev Kaur besides Pargat Singh and his wife Sukhwinder Kaur were sleeping in the house of Gurdev Kaur. At about 11.30 p.m. Parminder Singh, Avtar Singh and Jit Singh accused accompanied by four others entered their house. Parminder Singh pointed towards Pargat Singh and stated that he required to be eliminated. One of the persons who was not identified was armed with a rifle. Avtar Singh proclaimed that Dalip Singh would be available in his house where he could be eliminated. They took Pargat Singh with them. Out of fear no one from the house moved out. In the morning, Karnail Singh left for village Bhammadi and called at the house of Dalip Singh. Wife of Dalip Singh came and informed that Dalip Singh was taken away at midnight by the accused persons along with others.

4. Karnail Singh started searching for Dalip Singh and Pargat Singh. Dead body of Pargat Singh was found near the culvert in the area of village Bammadi with gun-shot wounds. Dead body of Dalip Singh with gun-shot wounds was found hanging with a Barota tree nearby. In the meantime, Kartar Singh, father-in-law of Pargat Singh and Shamsher Singh reached there. After leaving them to guard the dead bodies, Karnail Singh went to the Police Station and lodged the First Information Report. Ultimately, the respondents were arrested and were committed to the Court of Sessions to face trial.

5. Charge was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Before the evidence could be recorded, the Public Prosecutor moved an application under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for permission to withdraw from the prosecution. The ground taken was that the matter was reinvestigated by the CID Agency and it has been found that the accused were falsely implicated. In order to serve the broader cause of public, permission was claimed by the prosecution to withdraw from the prosecution.

6. Notice of the application was served on complainant Karnail Singh who contested the application. According to Karnail Singh, evidence was available on the record to connect the accused-respondents with the crime. He urged that withdrawal from the prosecution will not serve any public purpose.

7. The learned Additional Sessions J