https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179428 The court analyzed the scope of power under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing the need for the Public Prosecutor's independent discretion in withdrawal from prosecution. It determined that Shri Lalan Prasad Sinha was competent to apply for withdrawal and acted independently. The court found the grounds for withdrawal of Respondents Nos. 2, 3, and 4 unjustified, as the offences were not political and a prima facie case existed. Due to legal infirmities, the withdrawal was quashed, and the case was directed to proceed lawfully. en-us Thu, 16 Dec 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Mar 2016 15:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179428 The court analyzed the scope of power under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing the need for the Public Prosecutor's independent discretion in withdrawal from prosecution. It determined that Shri Lalan Prasad Sinha was competent to apply for withdrawal and acted independently. The court found the grounds for withdrawal of Respondents Nos. 2, 3, and 4 unjustified, as the offences were not political and a prima facie case existed. Due to legal infirmities, the withdrawal was quashed, and the case was directed to proceed lawfully. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 16 Dec 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179428