Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.47 seconds)Sheo Nandan Paswan vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 20 December, 1986
In Rahul Agarwal v. Rakesh Jain [(2005) 2
SCC 377], after referring to various decisions of the
Honourable Supreme Court including that of the
Contitution Bench in Shionandan's case, it was observed
as follows:
Rajendra Kumar Jain Etc vs State Through Special Police ... on 2 May, 1980
13. The judgment in Rajendar kumar Jain (supra)
was considered by the Constitution Bench of the
Honourable Supreme Court in Shionandan Paswan's case
(supra).
Rahul Agarwal vs Rakesh Jain & Anr on 18 January, 2005
15. From examination of the aforesaid decisions, it
is evident that the basic principle to be applied while
Crl.M.C.No.5290/2018 15
considering an application under Section 321 Cr.P.C, is that
the Court has an obligation to ensure that the withdrawal
of the prosecution is submitted for securing the interests of
administration of justice. When the aforesaid principles are
applied to the facts and circumstances of this case, the
following aspects are to be noticed. On going through
Annexure-D complaint, it can be seen that the Public
Prosecutor has taken several grounds in support of her
decisions to withdraw the prosecution. One of the reasons
for the same was that the accused persons are youngsters
and the continuation of prosecution would affect their
future. They were celebrating Christmas festival at the
relevant time. However, as observed by the learned
Sessions Judge, the aforesaid reasons cannot be cited as
proper justifiable reasons to support an application for
withdrawal of prosecution. The status of the accused
persons and the impact which it would cause upon their
future on account of the prosecution, is not a matter of
Crl.M.C.No.5290/2018 16
concern. As observed by the Honourable Supreme Court in
Rahul Agarwal's case (supra) every crime is an offence
against the society and society demands that the offender
should be punished. Therefore, ensuring punishment to a
person who has committed offence is in the interest of the
society and such interest has to prevail over the individual
interest of the person accused of the crime. Once a person
is accused of an offence, the personal interest of the
accused is confined to the rights guaranteed to him as an
accused, such as, reasonable opportunity to defend the
accusation, fair trial, in accordance with the statutory
procedure, etc. Withdrawal of prosecution is not a right
which he can claim. The possible adverse impact of trial on
the future of accused person, is the personal interest of the
accused, and it has to concede to the interests of the
society. Therefore, such criterion cannot be adopted for
taking a decision on the question of continuation of the
prosecution.
Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
1