Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)Queen-Empress vs Murarji Gokuldas on 20 December, 1888
"We may at once say that we do not agree with
the contention that in the second case the
Public Prosecutor or the Police Prosecutor
could have withdrawn from the prosecution.
The remarks that Mr. Thakor has relied on in
Queen Empress v. Murariji Gokuldas (1888 13
Bom. 389) appear to have been made with
reference to cases in which the prosecution is
conducted by the Public Prosecutor. The words
'any Public Prosecutor may withdraw from the
prosecution' in s. 494 clearly imply that the
prosecution referred to must be one which is
already being conducted by the Public
Prosecutor and it seems clear to us that
unless the Public Prosecutor is already in
charge of the prosecution, he cannot withdraw
from it, and that the Public Prosecutor was
here not in charge of the second prosecution."
Amar Narain Mathur vs The State Of Rajasthan on 23 April, 1951
In Amar Narain v. State of Rajasthan(4), the learned Judges
had occasion to deal with a matter similar to the one that
came up before the Patna High Court in Gulli Bhagat's
CaSe(3). A private party had challenged, before the High
Court, in revision, the order of the Magistrate permitting
the public prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution under
s. 494 of the Code. That again was a case, as will be seen
from the facts gathered from the judgment, in which the
prosecution was launched by the State and it was also being
(1) I.L.R. (1889) 13 B om. 389.
The State Of Bihar vs Ram Naresh Pandey(With Connected ... on 31 January, 1956
Before we refer to those decisions, however, it is necessary
to advert to the decision of this Court in The State of
Bihar v. Ram Naresh Pandey(1) where, after tracing the
history of the present s. 494, the Court has observed that
it is right to remember that the Public Prosecutor, though
an executive officer, is, in a larger sense, also an officer
of the Court and that he is bound to assist the Court
(1) [1957] S.C.R. 279.
Ratanshah Kavasji vs Keki Behramsha on 21 June, 1944
Mr. Nuruddin Ahmed, learned counsel for the first respon-
dent, has referred us to the observations of the Bombay High
Court in Ratansha Kavasji v. Behramsha Pardiuala(1). In
that case it will be seen that in respect of a complaint
filed by the police before a Magistrate, the Public
Prosecutor applied for permission to withdraw the complaint
and the Court granted the same and allowed the case to be
withdrawn, and discharged the accused under S. 494 of the
Code. Immediately after the withdrawal of the said com-
plaint, a private complaint was filed by the revision-
petitioner before the High Court, against the same accused,
on the same facts and before the same Magistrate. The
Magistrate dismissed the complaint on the ground that, as
the police case on the same facts has been allowed to be
withdrawn, the second complaint was not maintainable. This
order of the Magistrate was challenged, in revision, before
the High Court, by the complainant. No doubt, ultimately,
the learned Judges set aside the order of the Magistrate and
remanded the proceedings as, in their opinion, there has
been no sufficient compliance with the provisions of S. 203
of the Code. But, it is necessary to note that, on behalf
of the respondents before the High Court, one of the grounds
urged, for not interfering with the order of the Magistrate,
was that even the second prosecution, initiated by the
private complainant, can, in law, be withdrawn by the Public
Prosecutor. On this ground, it was further urged that the
mere circumstance that a fresh complaint has been privately
lodged by the revision-petitioner on the same facts as the
police prosecution had been based, would not be sufficient
ground for pro-
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 203 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Bishun Chand vs Babu Audh Bihari Lal on 21 March, 1917
In Pratap Chand v. Bihari Lal(2), the Public Prosecutor
entered appearance, in a case instituted on a private
complaint, which was being prosecuted by the said private
complainant, and asked for withdrawal from the prosecution,
under S. 494 of the Code, and that application was granted
by the Additional District Magistrate. That order was
challenged on the ground that the Public Prosecutor had no
right to intervene in the proceedings, initiated on a
private complaint, and ask for withdrawal from the
prosecution and that,
(1) A.I.R. 1931 Cal. 607.
Gulli Bhagat vs Narain Singh on 20 April, 1923
The learned Judges also state that the Crown is the
prosecutor and the custodian of the public peace and if it
decides to let an offender go, no other aggrieved party can
be heard to object. A careful study of the facts, in that
case, will show that the learned Judges were dealing with a
case where the Public Prosecutor was conducting the
prosecution and he was in charge of the particular case in
which he asked for leave to withdraw the prosecution as
against some of the accused, and leave was granted. That
order, was challenged by a private party, by way of
revision, before the High Court. That decision, again, does
not assist the appellant.
Sher Singh vs Jitendranath Sen on 12 May, 1931
In Sher Singh v. Jitendranath(1), the learned Judges had
occasion to consider the question as to the legality of an
application for withdrawal of prosecution filed by a Public
Prosecutor, entering appearance for that purpose only.
Ghose, J., expresses the view that such an application filed
by a Public Prosecutor, who has not been in charge of the
case, though not regular, cannot be considered to be
illegal. On the other hand, Lord Williams, J., the other
member of the Bench, was prepared to take the view that the
action of the Public Prosecutor, in entering appearance
simply for the purpose of withdrawal, though unusual, is
neither illegal nor irregular. No doubt, this decision of
the Calcutta High Court, prima facie, supports the
contention of the appellant. But we are not inclined to
accept the reasoning, adopted by the learned Judges, in this
case.
1