Withdrawal of prosecution requires justification in public interest and cannot be merely on administrative instructions without substantiation.

1. The present petition under S.482 of CrPC has been preferred by the State assailing the order dated 29.9.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, District Raigarh in Criminal Revision No.39 of 2012.

2. Vide impugned order dated 29.9.2012, the learned Revisional Court had rejected the revision petition preferred by the State Government against the order dated 25.7.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sarangarh in Criminal Case No. 137 of 2003, whereby the learned Magistrate has refused to give consent under S.321 of CrPC to the prosecution for withdrawal of the prosecution cases against the accused persons.

3. Brief facts relevant for the adjudication of the present case is that an FIR was lodged at the instance of the complaint made by the CEO of Janpad Panchayat, Baramkela in respect of embezzlement in collection of food grains from the Fair Price shop of Village Bar in Block Baramkela. As per the case of the prosecution it was found that around 791.97 quintal of grains were lifted on the basis of fake coupons said to have been created by the Respondents and other accused persons, on the basis of which an FIR was lodged and in the course of investigation also the allegations in the FIR were found to be correct and the case was registered against the respondent - accused and the matter was put to trial vide Criminal Case No.137 of 2003 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sarangarh.

4. In the instant case, the FIR was lodged on 5.10.2001 and the charge - sheet was filed on 17.5.2002. In between, the charges were also framed on 5.3.2011. Meanwhile, it is said that the Law and Legislative Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, issued a letter dated 13.4.2012 to the District Magistrate, Raigarh for withdrawal of the prosecution against the accused persons in Criminal Case No. 137 of 2003 arising out of Crime No.68 of 2001. Based upon the said letter received from the Law and Legislative Department, the Public Prosecutor moved an application under S.321 of CrPC before the Trial Court on 12.6.2012. The Trial Court after considering the merits of the case vide its order dated 25.7.2012 reached to the conclusion that since the allegation against the respondents is that of committing fraud and cheating by fabricating documents and causing loss to the State Exchequer and prima facie the offence under S.420, S.467, S.468 and S.471 read with S.34 of IPC is said to have been made against the accused persons and further also taking into consideration the fact that for the offence under S.467 of IPC the sentence is for life imprisonment and for the offence under S.468 of IPC the sentence is for 10 years of imprisonment and further the nature of offence seems to be against the public interest and serious in nature, refused to grant consent for withdrawal of the prosecution and accordingly rejected the application vide its order dated 25.7.2012.

5. The said order dated 25.7.2012 of the Trial Court was put to challenge in a revision petition registered as Criminal Revision No. 39 of 2012. The Revisional Court also having considered the merits of the case as adduced by the State finally vide its order dated 29.9.2012 has rejected the revision petition holding that the Court below has not committed any error of law while rejecting the application. Further, the Revisional Court has also found that the manner in which the prosecution had suggested for withdrawal of prosecution also does not seem to be proper as the entire prosecution was sought to be withdrawn without leaving any of the accused persons prosecuted. Further, the Revisional Cour