1957 (1) TMI 39 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court restores trial court decision, allows withdrawal of prosecution under Section 494

STATE OF BIHAR Versus RAM NARESH PANDEY

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the trial court's decision, allowing the withdrawal of prosecution against the appellant ... - Issues Involved1. Validity of the order of discharge under Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Judicial discretion in granting consent for withdrawal of prosecution.3. Applicability of Section 494 during the committal stage in a Sessions case.4. The role and function of the Public Prosecutor and the Court under Section 494.5. The relevance and sufficiency of evidence for granting withdrawal.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis1. Validity of the order of discharge under Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:The appeals arose from an order of discharge passed by the Subordinate Judge-Magistrate of Dhanbad under Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, consenting to the withdrawal of the Public Prosecutor from the prosecution against the appellant, Mahesh Desai. The prosecution was initiated based on the first information report of Ram Naresh Pandey against 28 persons for the murder of Nand Kumar Chaubey during a riot. The withdrawal application was made on the grounds that the evidence against Mahesh Desai was meager and unlikely to establish a prima facie case. The Magistrate consented to the withdrawal, and this order was upheld by the Sessions Judge but set aside by the High Court, which directed that evidence be recorded before considering the withdrawal.2. Judicial discretion in granting consent for withdrawal of prosecution:The core legal question was whether it was improper for the Court to grant consent for withdrawal under Section 494 before evidence was taken if it was reasonably satisfied that the evidence would not likely result in conviction. The Supreme Court noted that Section 494 vests discretion in the Public Prosecutor to apply for withdrawal and requires the Court's consent. The Court's function in granting consent is judicial, meaning it must ensure that the Public Prosecutor's discretion is not improperly exercised and that the withdrawal is not an attempt to interfere with justice for illegitimate reasons. However, the Court emphasized that this does not necessitate a judicial determination of a triable issue before granting consent.3. Applicability of Section 494 during the committal stage in a Sessions case:The respondents argued that an application for withdrawal under Section 494 does not lie at the committal stage in a Sessions case. They contended that the phrase 'in cases tried by jury before the return of the verdict' implies that withdrawal cannot occur until the trial stage in the Sessions Court. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that Section 494 is wide enough to cover all stages of proceedings, including the committal stage. The Court noted that the section's wording is general and applies to all cases capable of terminating in discharge or acquittal, depending on the stage of the proceedings.4. The role and function of the Public Prosecutor and the Court under Section 494:The Supreme Court highlighted the respective roles of the Public Prosecutor and the Court under Section 494. The Public Prosecutor, though an executive officer, is also an officer of the Court and must assist the Court with a fairly considered view. The Court's role is to ensure that the Public Prosecutor's discretion is exercised properly and not for illegitimate purposes. The Court's consent is a judicial function, but it does not require a prima facie determination of a triable issue. The Court must scrutinize the grounds for withdrawal carefully but does not need to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the evidence.5. The relevance and sufficiency of evidence for granting withdrawal:The Supreme Court examined the evidence against Mahesh Desai, which was based on the first information report and statements made during the investigation. The evidence primarily consisted of exhortations made by Mahesh Desai, as reported by witnesses. The Court found that the Public Prosecutor's view that the evidence was meager and unlikely to result in conviction was not improper. The Court noted that the private complainant did not provide any additional or better material to support the prosecution. Therefore, the Court concluded that the Magistrate's order granting withdrawal was justified and should not have been interfered with by the High Court.ConclusionThe Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the trial court's order, allowing the withdrawal of prosecution against Mahesh Desai under Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court emphasized the judicial function of granting consent for withdrawal and the proper exercise of discretion by the Public Prosecutor. The appeals were allowed, and the prosecution was directed to proceed against the remaining accused.