STATE OF ORISSA versus CHANDRIKA MOHAPATRA & ORS.

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 335 · Decided: 23-08-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

335 
STATE OF ORISSA 
v. 
CHANDRIKA MOHAPATRA & ORS. 
August 23, 1976. 
[P. N. BHAGWATI AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.] 
Code of Crlininal Procedure (Act 2 of 1974), s. 494-Prosecution 
apply-
ins; for withdrawal of prosecution-Principles to be considered by Court in 
granting CQnsent. 
The principles that should be kept in mind by the Court wh~n giving consent 
to the prosecution under s. 494 Cr. P.C. 1973, for withdrawing the prosecution 
against the accused, are that the prosecution is not able to produce sufficient 
evidence to sustain the charge, or that the prosecution does not appear to be 
well founded, or that there are other circumstances which clearly $how that the 
object of administration of justice would not be advanced or furthered by going 
on with the prosecution. It is not sufficient for the prosecution merely to say 
that it is not expedient to proceed with the prosecution. The ultimate guiding 
consideration must always be the interest of administration of justice and that is 
the touchstone on which the question must be determined. 
No hard and fost 
rule can be laid down nor can any categories of cases be defined in which con· 
sent should be granted or refused. It must ultimately depend on the facts and 
circumstances of each case in the light of what is necessary in order to promote 
the ends of justice, because, the objective of every judicial_ process must be the 
attainment of justice. (338 C-F] 
Where, therefore, the Magistrate 
granted permission for withdrawal, be-
cause the prosecution -averred that the evidence collected during investigation was 
not sufficient to sustain the charge against the accused and after satisfying him-
self, by perusing the case diary, that the averment of the prosecution was justi-
fied, the High Court was in error in setting aside the order of the Magistrate. In 
the instant case, the High Court also erred in observing that the Magistrate had 
A 
c 
I> 
not perused the case diary, and that the Magistrate had accorded consent for 
E 
withdrawal of the -prosecution by accepting the prosecution case that it was in-
expedient to proceed with the case. (338 H; 339 A] 
Where, in the connected case, the Magistrate gave his 
consent for with-
drawal on the ground that it was administratively considered by the State in-
expedient to proceed with the case, though it w~s not a valid ground, no useful 
purpose would be served in compelling the prosecution to proceed with the case, 
because, both cases arose out of the same incident and the evidence in regard 
to both was admittedly the same. [339 C-D] 
Where the application made by the prosecution for withdrawal showed that 
the clash in which certain persons were injured arose out of rivalry between two 
trade unions. but that since the date of the incident calm and peace prevailed in 
the industrial undertaking, the Trial Court would be justified in granting consent 
F 
for the withdrawal of the prosecution and the High Court would be in error in 
setting aside that order. 
In the pr.esent case, the State felt that it would not be 
conducive to the interests of justice to continue the prosecution, since the prose· 
cution or conviction of the accused would rouse feelings of bitterness and anta-
G 
gonism and disturb the calm and peaceful atmosphere prevailing in the under-
taking. 
Ultimately, every offence has a social or economic cause behmd it and 
if the State feels that the elimination or eradication of the social or economic 
cause of the crime would be better served by not proceeding with the prosecu-
tion, the State should be at liberty to withdraw from the prosecution. [340 D-G] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 308-
310 of 1975. 
(Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgments and Orders dated 
18.1.1974 and 18.2.1974 of the Orissa High Court in Criminal Revi-
sion Nos. 708, 705 and 306/72 respectively). 
H 
336 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1977] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
G. Rath, Adv. General for the State of Orissa and B. Parthasarthi, 
B 
c 
I) 
E 
F 
for the appellant. 
Nemo for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BHAGWATI, J.-This group of three Criminal Appeals by Special 
Leave can be divided broadly into two categories : one category 
consisting of Criminal Appeals Nos. 308 & 309 of 1975 alild the other, 
consisting of Criminal Appeal No. 310 of 1975. We are disposing 
of them by a common judgment since the question which arises for 
consideration in both sets of appeals is
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.