MOHD. MUMTAZ versus NANDINI SATPATHY AND ORS.

Citation: [1987] 1 S.C.R. 680 · Decided: 20-12-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
MOHD. MUMTAZ 
v. 
NANDINI SATPATHY AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 20, 1986 
[P.N. BHAGWATI, CJ, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, V. KHALID, 
G.L. OZA AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.] 
I 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 321-Withdrawal from 
prosecution-Public Prosecutor-Right of-Conditions under which 
·withdrawal is permissible-Competency of Court to permit withdrawal. 
Prosecution was launched against Respondent No. l under 
s.5(l)(d) read with s.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for 
having assets disproportionate to her known sources of income. 
The Special Public Prosecutor filed application for withdrawal of 
the prosecution against Respondent No. I. The Additional Special Judge 
allowed the application. The High Court dismissed the revision petition 
and confirmed the order permitting withdrawal of ihe case. 
Dismissing the Appeal to this Court, 
HELD: Per Venkataramiah, J. 
The Public Prosecutor had applied bis mind to the case before. 
applying for withdrawal and the Chief Judicial Magistrate has not com-
milted any error in giving bis consent to such withdrawal. [683D-E] 
The State of Bihar v. Ram Naresh Pandey, [1957] S.C.R. 279 and 
R. K. Jain etc. v. State through Special Police Establishment and others, 
[1980] 3 SCR 982, Relied upon. 
Per Khalid, J, 
I. What is to be decided in this case is whether the order passed 
by the Magistrate under s.321, Criminal Procedure Code, is prope•r or 
not. The Court is not called upon to consider the propriety of the charge 
framed and then examine the evidence and see whether the accused 
should be discharged or the charge framed should be upheld. [684D-El 
2. Consent can be given for withdrawal from the p~tion of a 
680 
...J \ 
+ 
r-
y 
~-
~ 
' 
MOHD. MUMTAZ v. NANDINI SATPATHY 
681 
~-
case, not only when the charge is not framed, but even after the charge 
/ 
A 
is framed and at any time before the judgment. [6848-C] 
< 
The State of Bihar v. Ram Naresh Pan'dey, [1957] SCR 279 and 
R. K. Jain etc. v. State through Special Police Establishment and others, 
[1980] 3 SCR 982, Relied upon. 
...... 
B 
·Per Oza, J. 
l. Ordinarily when the exercise of considering the material on 
-
record for the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient mate-
-( 
rial to sustain the prosecution can be performed by the Court under 
s.239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, the Court should not c 
..,.., 
allow the prosecuJion to be withdrawn under s.321: [688C-E] 
2. In the present case, there is no point in setting aside the with-
drawal and sending the case back to the Special Judge because there is 
no material at all to show that there is a prima facie case and the 
charges appear to lie groundless. Respondent No. l would, therefore, 
D 
be entitled to be discharged under s.239. It is, therefore, not necessary 
or expedient to interfere with the order made by the Special Judge and 
confirmed by the High Court. [688E·Fl 
---}.. 
3. When the charge-sheet was filed, the Income Tax Department 
re-opened the assessment, examined the whole matter afresh and pas-
E 
sed final orders during the pendency of the case in this Court explaining 
all the items of assets said to have been unaccounted and suppressed as 
~ 
also entires pertaining to the house construction and other assets, which 
show that there is nothing to indicate that Respondent No. l was posses-
sed of assets disproportionate to her means. [688A-B] 
F 
;f 
4. The application moved by the Special Public Prosecutor for 
withdrawal from the prosecution was, therefore, clearly bona fide and 
in furtherance of public justice and It was clearly a false and vexatious 
criminal prosecution launched against respondent No. l. The Special 
Judge also on these facts took the view that"no useful purpose would be . 
served by continuanee of the prosecution and accordingly permitted the 
G 
withdrawal which was upheld by the High Court in revision. [688B] 
-{ 
5. The first allegation relates to payments made to Dharitri and 
Navjat Printers. Dharitri is a newspaper which receives advertise-
ments. There is nothing to show that the payment received by Dharitri 
H 
for advertisement had anything to do with respondent No. l. [687-B-C] 
" 
682 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] lS.C.R. 
6. The second allegation relates to valuation of assets and the 
~ 
A 
construction of the house and the third relates to the monies receind by 
the U.P.C.C. which are alleged to have been paid by respondent No. I. 
Lastly there are similar item

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.