Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 39 (0.54 seconds)Section 321 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
M. N. Sankarayarayanan Nair vs P. V. Balakrishnan & Ors on 26 November, 1971
The next question raised by Counsel for the appellant
was whether Shri Lalan Prasad Sinha was the competent
officer entitled to apply for the withdrawal from the
prosecution and if so whether he discharged his function
independently as a free agent ? In this behalf Counsel urged
that the initial appointment of Shri A.K. Dutt as the
Special Public Prosecutor made by the State Government under
s. 24 (8) Cr. P.C. On 26th February, 1979 to conduct this
case had not been cancelled, that Shri Lalan Prasad Sinha
could merely be regarded as one of the four Public
Prosecutors appointed on the fresh panel constituted under
Law (Justice) Department's letter No.C/Mis-8-43/78 J dated
24th February, 1981 and that though this particular case had
been allotted to him by the letter dated 25th February,
1981, he had no authority over the head of Shri A.K.Dutt to
apply for withdrawal from the prosecution and as such the
application made by him would be unauthorised and illegal
and consequently the Court's order dated 20th June, 1981
would be vitiated. Counsel further contended that the State
Government had already taken a decision to withdraw from the
prosecution in this
85
case on grounds of inexpediency of prosecution for reasons
of State and public policy, that the said decision was
communicated to Shri Lalan Prasad Sinha, who was directed to
take steps in that behalf and that it was pursuant to such
direction that he made the application and not independently
on his own as a free agent and, therefore, the executive
function on the part of the Public Prosecutor (assuming he
had the authority to make the application) was improperly
performed. It is not possible to accept either of these
contentions for the reasons we shall presently indicate.