Govind Ram vs The State of Punjab and another

Surinder Singh, J.—This judgment will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 6349/M and 6436/M of 1978, both of which involve common question of law and fact.

The facts giving rise to the above petitions u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, filed by the Gobind Ram and Tarlok Chand petitioner may be briefly, recapitulated. Two complaints were filed by the Government Food Inspector Faridkot in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, u/s 16(1) (c) of the Prevention of Food Adultration Act, 1935, with the allegation that samples of moong dal which were taken from the shops of the petitioners on September 20, 1977, were found to be adulterated. Two separate complaints were initiated against the petitioners. While these complaints were pending consideration, the Government Food Inspector put in two applications before the trial Court, with the prayer that he may be allowed to withdraw both the cases, as according to the District Magistrate, Faridkot, the same would be in public interest. The trial Court considered the matter and arrived at the conclusion that it would not be a proper exercise of discretion of the Court to allow the withdraw of the cases, since the nature of the offence involved in them is very grave and is of highly anti social character. The applications of the Assistant Public Prosecutor were, therefore, dismissed in both the cases. The petitioners filed separate Revision Petitions against the said orders, but the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, also upheld the orders of the trial Court, mainly on the ground that "it is not clear as to how the withdrawal of the cases would be in the public interest". The present petitions were then filed, with a view to quash the proceedings in the two cases.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also for the State. So far as the respondents are concerned, their learned counsel has merely shown a copy of the Memorandum received from the District Magistrate, Faridkot, the effect that State representation is necessary, otherwise, he has nothing to say.

In so far as the law on the point is concerned, I had the occasion to notice the same in Criminal Revision No. 970 of 1978 (The State of Punjab through Government Food Inspector v. Wazir Singh 1978 Cri. R. 970 of decided on November 2, 1978) and I had placed reliance upon the observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa Vs. Chandrika Mohapatra and Others, In this authority, their Lordships held that in understanding and applying section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, two main feature thereof have to be kept in mind. Firstly the initiative is that of the public prosecutor and what the Court has to do is only to give its consent and not to determine any matter judicially. All that the Court is required to satisfy itself is that the executive function of the public prosecutor has not been improperly exercised, or that it is not an attempt to interfere with the normal course of justice for illegitimate reasons or purposes. In the casein hand, there was no material whatsoever to indicate any improper exercise of the executive function or any attempt to interfere with the normal course of justice for illegitimate reasons or purpose. The Courts below have clearly fallen in error by placing the burden upon the Public Prosecutor to prove the details of the public purpose. Which would be served by withdrawal of the cases. This as observed by their lordships of the Supreme Court, in not the function of the trial Court while considering an application for withdrawal of the cases u/s 321, Code of Criminal Procedure.

The result is that both the petition succeed and the proceeding pending against the petitioners before the trial Court, are quashed. The applications filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the withdrawal of the cases shall be deemed to have been accepted.