ORDER :

1. Since the issue involved and the petitioner in both these Criminal Revision Cases are one and the same, both these Criminal Revision Cases are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Criminal Revision Case Nos. 1296 and 1297 of 2009 are filed by the same petitioner-Anees Mohiuddin, under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order of the even date, dated 27.06.2009, passed in Crl. M.P. No. 1218 of 2006 in C.C. No. 1 of 2004 and Crl. M.P. No. 1228 of 2006 in S.C. No. 225 of 2005 respectively, by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case, Hyderabad, whereby, the Court below declined to grant consent to the Public Prosecutor for withdrawal from prosecution against the petitioner/accused in both these Criminal Revision Cases, observing that they are fit cases to proceed with trial, after framing of charges, if any.

3. Heard the submissions of Sri C. Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the sole respondent/State in both these Criminal Revision Cases and perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in both these Criminal Revision Cases would contend that the Government, vide G.O.Rt. Nos. 911 and 912, Home (Legal II) Department, dated 18.05.2006, ordered for withdrawal from prosecution against the petitioner in both the subject C.C. and S.C. The subject applications filed by the Public Prosecutor under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. in both these Criminal Revision Cases seeking permission to withdraw from prosecution before the Court below were in order and fulfils the requirements under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. Further, while dealing with the subject applications, the Court below is not supposed to go into the merits of the case. The Court below is only supposed to see as to whether the applications were made in good faith, in the interest of public policy and justice and not to thwart or stifle the process of law. The petitioner/accused in both these Criminal Revision Cases is being proceeded for the offence under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (for short ‘POTA’) basing on the confession made by the co-accused, which is inadmissible in evidence. The Court below erroneously placed reliance on Sections 30 and 133 of Indian Evidence Act. There is no legally acceptable evidence to proceed against the petitioner/accused in both these Criminal Revision Cases. The subject applications were filed by the prosecution before the Court below in good faith, opining that there was no conclusive evidence to prove the guilt of the petitioner/accused in both these Criminal Revision Cases. The Court below ought to have granted permission to the Public Prosecutor for withdrawal from prosecution. The orders under challenge suffer from illegality and impropriety and ultimately prayed to allow both the Criminal Revision Cases as prayed for. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sheo Nandan Paswan vs. State of Bihar and Others, 1987 Cri. L.J. 793 (SC).

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly conceded the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused in both these Criminal Revision Cases.

6. In view of the above submissions, the points that arise for determination in both these Criminal Revision Cases are as follows:

1. Whether the orders of the even date, dated 27.06.2009, passed in Crl. M.P. No. 1218 of 2006 in C.C. No. 1 of 2004 and Crl. M.P. No. 1228 of 2006 in S.C. No. 225 of 2005 respectively, by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case, Hyderabad, is liable to be set aside?

2. Since the charges are not framed in the subject S.C. and C.C. against the petitioner/accused in both these Criminal Revision Cases, whether he is liable for discharge?

POINT:

7. Here, it is apt to extract Section 321 of Cr.P.C. which reads as follows:

321. Withd