Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.12 seconds)

Abdul Karim Etc. Etc vs State Of Karnataka & Others Etc. Etc on 7 November, 2000

"18. The central question is whether the Public Prosecutor has really applied his mind to all the relevant materials on record and satisfied himself that the withdrawal from the prosecution would subserve the cause of public interest or not. Be it stated, it is the obligation of the Public Prosecutor to state what material he has considered. It has to be set out in brief. The court as has been held in Abdul Karim case [Abdul Karim v. State of Karnataka, (2000) 8 SCC 710 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 59 : AIR 2001 SC 116] , is required to give an informed consent. It is obligatory on the part of the court to satisfy itself that from the material it can reasonably be held that the withdrawal of the prosecution would serve the public interest. It is not within the domain of the court to weigh the material.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 78 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document

Abdul Wahab K. vs The State Of Kerala on 13 September, 2018

In Abdul Wahab K. v. State of Kerala and others [(2018) 18 SCC 448], the Supreme Court held that the Public Prosecutor or an Assistant Public Prosecutor, as the case may be, has a vital role under the statutory scheme and is expected to act as an independent person. He/she has to apply his/her mind and consider the effect of withdrawal on society in the event such permission is granted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 12 - D Misra - Full Document
1