Cr.P.C. (2 of 1974), Section 321, 397 - Application filed by the Deputy Director of Prosecution wherefrom it is manifest that the Government had no objection in withdrawing the case and the decision of the Government has been filed along with the application -  Trial court observed that it has gone through the petition and is satisfied that the grounds stated therein are sufficient for giving consent to withdraw the case and that on analyzing materials that there is no possibility of success in the criminal case and, therefore, the withdrawal from prosecution is necessary for the better advancement of public justice - It is clearly manifest that the Public Prosecutor had not applied his mind but had only placed the Government notification on record - Public Prosecutor or an Assistant Public Prosecutor, as the case may be, has an important role under the statutory scheme and is expected to act as an independent person - He/she has to apply his/her own mind and consider the effect of withdrawal on the society in the event such permission is granted -  In the case at hand, as is evincible, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has dwelt upon the merits and expressed an opinion that the case is not likely to end in conviction - It is a case where the Public Prosecutor had acted like a post office and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed an order not within the parameters of Section 321 CrPC - He should have applied the real test stipulated under Section 321 CrPC and the decisions of this Court but that has not been done – Order set aside.  (2018)2 SCeJ 1519

 

Cr.P.C. (2 of 1974), S.397- The High Court has unsuited the petitioners on the ground that they are third parties who are unconnected with the case -  Petitioners had filed revisions and the High Court has been conferred power to entertain the revisions and rectify the errors which are apparent or totally uncalled for - This is the power of superintendence of the High Court - Thus viewed, the petitioners could not have been treated as strangers, for they had brought it to the notice of the High Court and hence, it should have applied its mind with regard to the correctness of the order -  It may be said with certitude that the revision petitions filed before the High Court were not frivolous ones -  They were of serious nature -  It is a case where the Public Prosecutor had acted like a post office and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed an order not within the parameters of Section 321 CrPC -  He should have applied the real test stipulated under Section 321 CrPC and the decisions of this Court but that has not been done - Order of High Court dismissing revision petitions, erroneous - Set aside. (2018)2 SCeJ 1519