LexMOHD. MUMTAZ versus NANDINI SATPATHY AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MOHD. MUMTAZ
A
~-
v.
NANDINI SATPATHY AND ORS.
DECEMBER 20, 1986
[P.N. ·BHAGWATI CJ!, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH,
B
+
V. KHALID, G.L. OZA AND S.NATARAJAN, JJ.]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: ss.321 & 329-Nolle prosequi-
Withdrawal from pro5ccution-Right of public prosecutor-Charge
framed against accused-Withdrawal whether legal.
-
c
·...C
Section 321 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 empowers a Public
Prosecutor incharge of a case to withdraw with the consent of the court
+
from the prosecution of any person in respect of any one or more of the
offences for which he is tried, at any time before the judgment is
pronounced.·
D
Respondent No. 1 Ex-Chief Minister of Orlssa, was alleged to
have misappropriated a huge sum, said to have been collected by
District Congress Committees from various companies for publication of
their advertisements io party's souvenirs before the 1971 General Elec-
lions. A case was registered by the Vigilance Department against her
E
~
and a charge-sheet submitted. The Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrate
framed charges under ss.406,467 ,471 and 120 of the lPC.
After the 1980 General Election, the State Government took a
policy decision to withdraw cases against political leaders who were
"
subjected to victimisation. The Special Public Prosecutor on being
satisfied that the charge of criminal breach of trust would fail against F
respondent No. 1 filed a petition under s.321 Cr.P.C. and sought the
!{
permission of the court io public ioterest for withdrawal of the case,
when the case was posted for consideration of charge.
After making an objective assessment of the merits of the applica-
G
tion and beiog satisfied that the withdrawai of the prosecution would in
no way affect any public interest or improve any public confidence the
Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrate granted consent to,withdraw from the
--I,
prosecution. The appellant's revision petition having been dismissed by
the High Court he appealed by special leave to this Court.
Dismissiog the appeal the Court,
H
691
692
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1987] l S.C.R.
HELD: Per Oza, J. (Bhagwati C.J.I. and Oza, J.)
A
l. Once a charge has been framed against the accused on the
basis ihat there was ground for presuming that be had committeill the
offence charged against him, the Public Prosecutor cannot make an
application for withdrawal from the prosecution and the Magistrate
B cannot give his consent to such withdrawal on the ground that there was +
insufficient or no evidence to sustain the_prosecution. [698H-699B]
2. The charge of criminal breach of trust framed against respon-
dent No. 1, however, was totally groundless. There was nothing on
record to indicate that the entrustment of funds to her was for the
specific purpose of being utilised only for the purpose of publication of
C advertisements in the souvenirs. It was not the case of the prosecution
that any of these amounts were handed ·over by any of the companies to
her. The entrustment of thes~ '!1110unts, if at all, was to the souv,enir
committee of the All India Congress Committee and respondent No. 1
could not he charged for utilising any of these amounts for the purpose
D other than that for which it was entrusted to her. The charge against
her, therefore, could not he sustained. [699E-G]
E
Instead of permitting the prosecution to he withdrawn under
s.321 the charge framed against respondent No. 1 is quashed under s.239
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. [699H-700A]
Ji-
Per Venkataramiah, J.
I. I. Consent can he given under s.321 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 for withdrawal from the prosecution of a case at any
time before the judgment is pronounced. The framing of the charge
F
cannot he an impediment to give consent to such withdrawal.
G
H
1.2. In the instant case, the Public Prosecutor had applied his
mind to the case before applying for withdrawal and the Chief Judicial
Magistrate had not committed any error in giving his consent to such
withdrawal. The order was, therefore, fully justified.
2. The decision in State of Bihar v. Ram Naresh Pandey, [1957]
SCR 279, interpreting s.494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
and the decision in R.K. Jain v. State through Special Police Establish-
ment & Ors., [1980] 3 SCR 982, interpreting s.321 of the Code of Crimi-
nal. Procedure, 1973 do not call for any reconsideration.[694C-E]
..
-
I ....__-.
+
MOHD.MUMTAZv. NANDINISATPATHY
693
Per Khalid, J.Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.