LexABDUL KARIM versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A ABDUL KARIM v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. NOVEMBER 7, 2000 B [S.P. BHARUCHA, D.P. MOHAPATRA AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 321-Prosecution-Withdrawal from-Application of mind- C By court-Before grant of consent-Application of Public Prosecutor (PP)- Requirements of-Popular film actor kidnapped by Veerappan and h~s associates-State Government in panic yielding to Veerappan 's demands to withdraw TADA charges against his associates in jail facing charges under various penal statutes so as to facilitate their release-Demand also included· D release of some of Veerappan 's associates detained under National Security Act (NSA) for the release of the film actor-Accordingly, PP moved an application under S.321 for withdrawal of TADA charges-State Government also revoked detention order under NSA in respect of 4 detenues-No material to show PP applied his mind in good faith and in public interest-Court granted consent for withdrawal of TADA charges-Accused persons thereafter E granted bail-Validity of-Held: PP must independently apply his mind to all the relevant material and, in good faith, to be satisfied that public interest will be served by his withdrawal from prosecution-This is despite any order or direction to the PP-PP must set out the materials considered by him briefly, but concisely, in his application or affidav_it or place it before the court-Court's power is supervisory but grant of consent is not a matter of F course-Court has to give an informed consent-It must be satisfied that the PP has considered the material and, in good faith, reached the conclusion that withdrawal from prosecution is in public interest-Court must consider whether grant of consent may thwart or stifle the course of law or result in manifest injustice-Upon such considerations only court has to accord G informed consent for withdrawal from prosecution-On facts, order of consent does not meet requirements of S.321 and is bad in law-No materials, on the basis of which PP applied his mind in good faith; and in public interest, placed before court-Affidavit of PP shows complicity with ·the accused persons to secure their release on bail-Hence, bail order cancelled-Conduct of State Government and PP deprecated. H 382 - ABDUL KARIM v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 383 The border between the States of Karnataka and ramil Nadu runs A through mountainous forest and ori this forestland, half in Karnataka and ·half in Tamil Nadu, a man named Veerappan, a dreaded criminal, has held sway for more than 10 years. He was alleged to have poached elephants and smuggled out ivory and sandalwood in a very big way. He was alleged to be guilty of the most heinous crimes, including the murder of 119 persons, B including Police and Forest Officers and kidnapping. Despite various attempts over a number of years Veerappan could not be apprehended. Cases were filed against Veerappan and his associa,es under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA) and other penal provisions, i.e. Indian Penal Code (IPC), Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act. On 30.7.2000 Veerapp~n abducted Rajkumar, a popular film actor, from his farmhouse along with C three others. In order to release Rajkumar, Veerappan demanded withdrawal of charges under the TADA Act framed against some of his associates who were in judicial custody and withdrawal of detention order passed under the National Security Act against some of his other associates and their release. The State Government accepted these demands. The arrangement was that once TADA charges were withdrawn, the accused in judicial custody would move bail applications in cases of offences under IPC and other penal enactments. The Public Prosecutor would concede D and would not oppose the grant of bail. The court would grant the bail and, thus, accused would come out from judicial custody. Accordingly, the Special Public Prosecutor filed application under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal E Procedure, 1973 seeking consent of the Designated Court at Mysore to withdraw the TADA charges. The application was made when the trial of the cases to which it related was in progress and evidence of 51 witnesses had been recoi:ded. The Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial regarding other offences were being continued and the charges under the Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act, to certain extent covered the provisions of Sections 3
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.