LexBAIRAM MURALIDHAR versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 8 S.C.R. 328 BAIRAM MURALIDHAR V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 1587 of 2014) JULY 31, 2014. [DIPAK MISRA AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: C s. 321 - Withdrawal from prosecution - Duty of Public Prosecutor - Case alleging offences punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act registered against a Sub- lnspGctor of Police investigating a case - State Government issuing a G. 0. to withdraw the case - Application u/s 321 by Public Prosecutor for withdrawal of the case - Rejected by D trial court holding that Public Prosecutor did not apply his independent mind - High Court concurred with the view of trial court - Held: Public Prosecutor cannot act like post office on behalf of State Government - He is required to act in good faith, peruse the materials on record, satisfy himself and form E an independent opinion that withdrawal of the case would really subserve public interest at large - An order of Government in this regard is not binding on Public Prosecutor - It is the obligation of Public Prosecutor to state in brief what material he has considered.\ In the instant case, Public- F Prosecutor has been totally guided by order of Government and has not applied his mind to the facts of the case - Trial court as well as High Court has observed that it is a case under Prevention of Corruption Act - They have taken note of the fact that State Government had already granted G sanction - It is a/so noticeable that Anti Corruption Bureau has found that there was no justification of withdrawal of the prosecution - A case under Prevention of Corruption Act has its own gravity - Regard being had to the gravity of the H 328 BAIRAM MURALIDHAR v. STATE OF ANDHRA 329 PRADESH offence and the impact on public life apart from the nature of A application filed by Public Prosecutor, the view expressed by trial court as well as High Court cannot be found fault with. s. 321 - Withdrawal from prosecution - Duty of court - Held: Court while giving consent uls 321 is required to 8 exercise its judicial discretion which is not to be exercised in a mechanical manner - Court cannot give such consent on a mere asking - It is expected of the court to consider the material on record to see that the application has been filed in good faith and to serve the public interest and such C withdrawal would advance the cause of justice. The appellant, a Sub-Inspector of Police and Investigating Officer in a case registered for offence punishable uls 366(A), IPC, was, as a result of a trap laid, arrayed as an accused of offences punishable ulss 7 and D 13 (1) (d) rlw s. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the allegations that he demanded and accepted illegal gratification from the father of the accused in the case uls 366(A), IPC (complainant in the instant case) for not implicating him in the said kidnapping case and also E to file the charge-sheet against his son by reducing the gravity of the charge. When the case came up for hearing on the charge, the Public Prosecutor filed an application u/s 321, Cr.P.C. to withdraw the case against the accused- appellant on the ground that the State Government had F issued G.O. dated 23.4.2009 to withdraw the prosecution against the accused officer. The trial court rejected the application holding that the Public Prosecutor did not apply his independent mind except filing the petition with copy of the G.O. and that there were no sufficient G grounds or circumstances for the court to accept withdrawal of the case against the accused-officer. The High Court also dismissed the petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant, holding that the Public Prosecutor had not given any valid reason for withdrawal of the case, which did not warrant withdrawal u/s 321 of the Code. H 330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R. A Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The Public Prosecutor cannot act like the posf office on behalf of the State Government. He is required to act in good faith, peruse the materials on 8 record, satisfy himself and form an independent opinion that the withdrawal of the case would really subserve the public interest at large. It is the obligation of the public prosecutor to state in brief what material he has considered. An order of the Government on the Public C Prosecutor in this regard is not binding. He cannot remain oblivious to his
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.