Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. Mr Pancholi further submitted that even the supervisory jurisdiction of the court under Section 321, CrPC has been taken away. Consequently, by virtue of the Repealing Act of 2004, once the Review Committee is of the opinion that there is no prima facie case for proceeding against the accused under POTA, then, in cases in which cognizance has been taken by the court, the cases are deemed to have been withdrawn. Such withdrawal would, therefore, result in the discharge of the accused if the withdrawal is at a stage before the charge has been framed and, if it is at a stage after the charge has been framed, the same shall result in an acquittal.

21. It is apparent that by virtue of the Repealing Act of 2004, the executive function of deciding whether to withdraw from the prosecution or not which vested in the public prosecutor under Section 321, CrPC, has been taken away. The public prosecutor is not left with any such executive function. Even the supervisory function of the court, which is available under the normal provisions of Section 321, CrPC, has been expressly taken away by the Repealing Act of 2004.

22. Before we proceed any further, it would be instructive to notice the statement of objects and reasons of the Repealing Act of 2004. The same reads as under:-

24. Similarly, the intention of the Parliament was also that the supervisory function exercised by the court in granting consent under the normal provisions of Section 321, CrPC should not come in the way of withdrawing from cases by clearly making a provision for deemed withdrawal by virtue of Section 2 (3) of the Repealing Act of 2004.

25. We now come to the question as to who could be an aggrieved party when the Review Committee is of the opinion that there is no prima facie case for proceeding against the accused. Neither the State nor the public prosecutor can be regarded as an aggrieved party. This is so because even under the provisions of Section 321, CrPC, although the process of withdrawal may be initiated by the State Government, it is the public prosecutor alone, who, on an application of mind and in exercise of the executive functions vested in him, is to make the application for withdrawing from the case. Even under Section 321, CrPC, in case the public prosecutor, without any indication from the State Government, moved an application for withdrawing from the case and the court in exercise of its supervisory function granted its consent to such withdrawal, the State Government could not be construed as an aggrieved party. But, after the Repealing Act of 2004, whereby Parliament expressly took away the executive function of withdrawing from the case from the public prosecutor, in view of the backdrop of gross misuse of the provisions of POTA by some State Governments, the State Government can definitely not be regarded as an aggrieved party when the Review Committee arrives at the opinion that there is no prima facie case for proceeding against the accused.

27. Another aspect of the matter is that Section 60(5) of POTA, inter alia, stipulated that any direction issued by the Review Committee under sub-Section (4) would be binding on the State Government as also the police officer investigating the offence. As observed by the Supreme Court in M.A.K. Shaikh (supra) in paragraph 28 thereof, the direction issued by the Review Committee under Section 60(4) of POTA was binding on the concerned Government and investigating officer "but not the public prosecutor or the court under Section 321 of the Code". But by virtue of the Repealing Act of 2004, the provisions of Section 2(3) thereof were not subject to Section 321, CrPC and clearly excluded the provisions thereof. The wordings of the Repealing Act were clear and unambiguous and did not contemplate or provide for a further application of mind by the public prosecutor or grant of consent by the court under Section 321, CrPC. It is, therefore, clear that the decision of the Review Committee, after the Repealing Act of 2004, was not only binding on the concerned Government and the investigating officer, but also on the public prosecutor and the court in a case where cognizance had been taken by such court. Thus, the binding nature of the Review Committee‟s opinion under Section 60(5) of POTA was extended even further by the Repealing Act of 2004 so as to also bind the public prosecutor and the concerned court. Once the decision of the Review Committee is binding on the State Government, it is difficult for us to understand as to how the State Government can challenge the same by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.