The King vs Moule Bux And Ors. on 29 October, 1948
The same view was taken by a Full Bench of the Patna High Court in 'King v. Moule Bux', AIR (36) 1949 Pat 233, already cited. The following passage appears at page 235:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.31 seconds)Shailabala Devi vs Emperor on 18 August, 1933
In 'Shailabala Devi v. Emperor', AIR (20) 1933 All 678, Sulaiman, C. J., observed at page 680 as follows:
Gulli Bhagat vs Narain Singh on 20 April, 1923
In the second case 'Gulli Bhagat v. Narain Singh', AIR (11) 1924 Pat 283, the Public Prosecutor applied for withdrawal from the case at a late stage. This prayer was allowed by the trial Court, & thereupon the complainant came to the High Court in revision. The revision was rejected with the following observations at page 284:
Giribala Dasi vs Mader Gazi And Anr. on 15 June, 1932
In 'Giribala Dasi v. Mader Gazi', AIR (19) 1932 Cal 699, Mukerji, J., observed as follows:
Harihar Sinha And Ors. vs Emperor on 9 April, 1936
The same learned Judge adhered to this view in the case of 'Harihar Sinha v. Emperor', AIR (23) 1936 Cal 356.
Kapa Kasi Viswanadham vs Bondili Madan Singh And Ors. on 28 January, 1948
15. The next question, however, is whether even where the Public Prosecutor intimates to the Court that he wants to withdraw for reasons of State, the Court can ask the Public Prosecutor to give those reasons. We are of opinion that as the Court has to give consent on judicial principles, it should ask the Public Prosecutor to give those reasons. Our attention was drawn to the case of 'Kasi Viswanadham v. Madan Singh, AIR (35) 1948 Mad 422, in this connection. The learned Single Judge, who decided that case, held, in conformity with the decision of the Madras High Court 'in re Sadayan, 4 Ind Cas 1126 (Mad)', that:
The King vs Parmanand And Ors. on 5 November, 1948
In another Full Bench case, 'The King v. Parmanand', AIR (36) 1949 Pat 222, the same Court held that:
Sher Singh vs Jitendranath Sen on 12 May, 1931
8. With the assistance of Mr. Pathak, we have gone through the record & the first point made out that Mr. Mansha Bam Purohit, Govt. Advocate, who made the petition to the lower Court for permitting withdrawal was not the Public Prosecutor in charge of the case is not correct. While Mr. K.C. Jain was appointed Public Prosecutor in charge of the cases before the Special Criminal Court by Govt. Notification in the Rajasthan Gazette of 5-1-1949, the order of the Govt. appointing Mr. Mansha Ram as Public Prosecutor for the cases before the Special Criminal Court is dated 18-1-1951, & was placed on record, & it was on the 19th of January that the application for withdrawal from prosecution was made. While, as observed by their Lordships of the Calcutta High Court in 'Sher Singh v. Jitendranath Sen', AIR (18) 1931 Cal 607, the appointment of a new Public Prosecutor for the purpose of withdrawal of cases only is unusual, there is nothing illegal in this procedure. It is, however, obvious that when the Govt. changes its mind, it saves the first Public Prosecutor from embarrassment.
The King vs K. N. Chachan on 7 January, 1949
In a third case, 'The King v. K.N. Chachan', AIR
(36) 1949 Pat 449, the same Court held that:
Abdul (Bari) Mallick And Anr. vs Emperor on 7 July, 1925
In the first, 'Gopi Bari v. Emperor', AIR (7) 1920 Pat 362, a case had been prosecuted by the Police under Section 143, Penal Code. At a later stage the Court Sub-Inspector in charge of the prosecution applied for withdrawing from the case under Section 494. This was objected to by the complainant, & withdrawal was thereupon refused. The accused then went up to the High Court, & it was held that where a case had been started upon a police report, & the Court Sub-Inspector wanted to withdraw from prosecution, the Court acted without jurisdiction in rejecting the prayer for withdrawal, simply because the complainant wanted to proceed with the case. It was further held that in such a case the complainant had no 'locus standi' to control the proceedings.
1