R.M. TEWARI, ADVOCATE ETC. ETC. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ORS ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 898 · Decided: 20-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
R.M. TEWARI, ADVOCATE ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ORS ETC. ETC. 
FEBRUARY 20, 1996 
B 
[J.S. VERMA AND K. VENKATASWAMI, .TJ.) 
Te1Tolist and Disntptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: 
Ss.9, 14-Withdrawal from prosecution-Public Prosecutor filing ap-
C plications for-Factors to be taken into consideration-Explained. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Code of Oiminal Procedure, 1973: 
S.321-Withdrawal from Prosecution-Duty of Public Prosecutor and 
factors to be taken into consideration by courts-Explained. 
In Kartar Singh's case* this Court noticed that there had been some 
misuse of the provisions of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Preven-
tion) Act 1987 and felt that there ought to be a screening committee/Review 
Committee at the Central as well as at the State level, to review all the 
prosecutions under the Act. Accordingiy, like other States, the Government 
of Delhi also constituted a high power Screening Committee/Review Com-
mittee which reviewed the cases registered under the Act and recom-
mended for deletion of charges under the Act in specified criminal cases 
pending before the Designated Court. The State Government conveyed its 
approval to the Director of Prosecution. Accordingly, the Public 
Prosecutor filed applications before the Designated Court for withdrawal 
of charges under the Act in all the specified cases. The Designated Court 
rejected the applications. Aggrieved, the Government of Delhi filed the 
present appeals. A writ petition was also filed in public interest for a 
direction to the Designated Court to permit withdrawal of all the cases 
recommended by the Review Committee. 
Disposing of the matters, this Court. 
HELD : 1.1. The Designated Court was right in taking the view that 
Vl'i~hdrawal from prQsecution is not to be permitted mechanically by the 
court on an application for that purpose made by the Public prosecutor. 
H The Public Prosecutor did not fully appreciate the requirements of Sec-
898 
a 
\ 
-
R.M. TEWARiv. STATE 
899 
tions 321 Cr. P.C. and made the applications for withdrawdl from prosecu-
A 
tion only on the basis of the recommendations of the Review Committee. 
[903-G; 904-B] 
1.2. The Public Prosecutor has not to act mechanically in the dis-
charge of his statutory function under Section 321 Cr. P.C. on a recommen-
dation being made by the Review Committee. He has to satisfy himself in B 
each case that the case is fit for withdrawal from prosecution in accordance 
with the settled principles indicated in the decisions of this Court and then 
to satisfy the Designated Court of the existence of a ground which permits 
withdrawal from prosecution under s.321, Cr. P.C. [903-H; 904-A, C] 
*Kartar Singh Etc. v. State of Punjab Etc., [1994] 3 SCC 596; State of C 
01issa v. Chand1ika Mahapatra and Others, [1976] 4 SCC 250 and Sheonan-
dan Paswan v. State of Bihar & Others, [1983] 2 SCR 61, relied on. 
2.1. In Kartar Singh, it was observed that a review of the cases should 
be made by a High Power Committee to ensure that there was no misuse of D 
the stringent provisions of the TADA Act and any case in which resort to the 
TADA Act was found to be unwarranted, the necessary remedial measures 
should be taken. The Review Committee is expected to perform its functions 
in this manner. If the recommendation of the Review Committee, based on 
the material present, is that resort to provisions of the TADA Act is unwar-
E 
ranted fur any reason which permits withdrawal from prosecution for those 
offences, a suitable application made under Section 321 Cr. P.C. on that 
ground has to be considered and decided by the Designated Court giving 
due weight to the opinion formed by the Public Prosecutor on the basis of 
the recommendation of the High Power Committee. [904-E-G] 
F 
K01tar Singh Etc. v. State of Punjab Etc., [1994] 3 SCC 569, explained. 
2.2. An application made to withdraw the charges of offences under 
the TADA Act pursuant to review of a case by the Review Committee has 
to be considered and decided by the Designated Courts, keeping in mind 
that the initial invocation of the stringent provisions of the TADA Act is G 
itself subject to sanction of the Government and, therefore, the revised 
opinion of the Government formed oil the basis of the recommendation of 
the High Power Committee after scrutiny of each case should not be lightly 
disregarded by the court except for weighty reasons such as malafides or 
manifest arbitrariness. The worth of the material to su
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.