The State Government has the power to review or recall its decision to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal before it is actually presented in the High Court.

S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. Whether the State Government can review or recall its decision under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal, before its actual presentation in the High Court is the somewhat significant question which falls for determination before this Full Bench.

2. The facts giving rise to the issue though of somewhat political prominence, lie in a narrow compass. On the Baisakhi day of April 13, 1978, a gruesome incident took place near the Railway Stadium, Amritsar, in which as many as 17 persons, including Dharamvir Singh, the son of Lal Singh petitioner, lost their lives. Consequent thereto a criminal case was registered in which Baba Gurbachan Singh (now dead), the then Head of the Nirankari Sect, and sixty respondents were challenged and committed to sessions to stand their trial on the charges of murder, criminal conspiracy and other allied offences. Later, under the orders of the Supreme Court of India the case was transferred to the Court of Session at Karnal for trial. Mr. R.S. Gupta, the learned Sessions Judge, Karnal, by his judgement dated January 4, 1980, acquitted all the accused persons.

3. The petitioner avers that he is an illiterate old man of about 70 years, who has suffered a cruel blow by the death of his son and is otherwise unaware of the intricate procedure of law and statutory requirements. He had first learnt that the State Government had decided to appeal against the order of acquittal. However, later he had come to know that no such appeal was being preferred under the orders of the Government. The copy of the letter of the District Magistrate, Amritsar, dated April 18, 1980, to the effect that the Government has given its decision that the case was not fit for filing an appeal is annexure P/1 to the writ petition.

4. Aggrieved by the alleged reversal of the decision of the State Government to file an appeal, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the said order and seeking a mandamus against it for directing its Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court in implementation of its earlier orders.

5. The writ petition is resisted on behalf of the respondent-State first on the preliminary grounds of the absence of any locus standing the writ petitioner, the bar of limitation for presenting the appeal, and the existence of an alternative remedy by way of filing a revision petition against the order of acquittal. On merits the broad factual position is admitted. The specific stand taken is that it is within the power of the respondent-State to review and alter a decision taken by the earlier Government to present an appeal and this decision was taken bona fide after consulting the legal experts and then approved by the Governor in Council during the Presidents Rule. It has been categorically averred that in fact the decision not to present an appeal was taken by the respondent-State before the limitation for filing the same had expired. It is then averred that the Government under the Presidents Rule had the fullest jurisdiction to supersede and revoke the earlier orders of the Government and could in any case alter or review an executive order passed by itself or the earlier Government in order to rectify an erroneous decision, already taken. It is claimed that the decision of not filing an appeal is valid and within jurisdiction and further it had been found that there was little chance of the appeal to succeed and it was not in public interest to pursue the matter any further. All allegations of any extraneous considerations for varying the earlier decision to present an appeal are denied. Any violation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution or any infraction of the basic structure of the Constitution of India are strongly controverted.

6. A written statement has also been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 to 4 and 6 to 61 but in view of