JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Rajendra Prasad Mishra along with Sri Pradeep Kumar Shukla, learned counsels for the applicant and Sri Alok Saran with Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocates for the State.

2. Sri Rajendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit, today in the Court, the same is taken on record.

3. By means of this application/petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

"(i) to quash the impugned judgment and order dated 04.11.2020, passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.3/ Special Judge (M.P./M.L.A.), Gonda in Crl. Case No.100 of 2019; State vs. Prem Narayan Pandey, arising out of Case Crime No.109 of 2003, under Section 60/72 of Excise Act, Police Station-Tarabganj, District-Gonda.

(ii) to allow the application filed by the Public Prosecutor under Section 321 Cr.P.C. bearing Application No.26Ka.

(iii) to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Crl. Case No.100 of 2019; State vs. Prem Narayan Pandey, arising out of Case Crime No.109 of 2003, under Section 60/72 of Excise Act, Police Station-Tarabganj, District-Gonda pendng in the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1/ Special Judge M.P./M.L.A., Gonda."

4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards the order dated 04.02.2023 passed by the learned trial court rejecting the discharge application of the petitioner which was filed pursuant to the order dated 01.12.2022 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Crl. Misc. Application (U/S 482 Cr.P.C.) No.8615 of 2022 marked as 57Kha, as the order has been enclosed as Annexure No.SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed on 09.02.2023.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that a letter dated 14.11.2019 has been preferred from the office of the District Magistrate, Gonda addressing to the Joint Director, Prosecution, Gonda referring a letter dated 01.11.2019 for withdrawal of the prosecution against the present applicant (Annexure No.3). Pursuant thereof an application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. was filed on 23.11.2019 before the learned trial court concerned by the Assistant Public Prosecutor (Criminal).

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the learned trial court refused to allow the application filed under Section 321 Cr.P.C. only on the ground that no documentary material has been put forth demonstrating that such withdrawal is in the interest of public justice.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that Section 321 Cr.P.C. clothes the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from prosecution of any person accused of an offence, both when no evidence was taken or even if entire evidence has been taken. The outer limit for the exercise of this power at any time before the judgment is pronounced. The caveat for moving the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. is the Public Prosecutor has to make out some ground which would advance or further the cause of public justice. If the Public Prosecutor shows that he may not be able to produce sufficient evidence so sustained the charge, an application for withdrawal from prosecution may be legitimately made by him, as held in the case of Sheonandan Paswan vs. State of Bihar (1987) 1 SCC 288.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the nature of the case which is sought to be withdrawn would not affect the society at large, thus, such withdrawal would not be against the public justice.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that in the case of State of Punjab vs. Union of India (1986) 4 SCC 335, it has been held that the Public Prosecutor may withdraw from the prosecution of a case not merely on the ground of paucity of evidence but also in order to further the broad ends of public justice, which may include social, economic and political purpose. The ultimate guiding consideration while granting a permission to withdraw from the pros