STATE OF PUNJAB versus SURJIT SINGH & ANOTHER

Citation: [1967] 2 S.C.R. 347 · Decided: 06-01-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
'. 
H 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
SURJIT SINGH & ANOTHER 
January 6, 1967 
(K. SUBBA RAO, C. J., J.C. SHAH, S. M. SIKRI, V. RAMASWAMI 
AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.J 
Cri111inal Procedure Code, 1898, s. 494-Prosecution on private coni-
plai11t heing conducted by complainant-Public Prosecutor not in charge 
of case-Whether can file application for withdrawal of case. 
The first respondent instituted a complaint before the Magistrate of 
certain offences under the Penal Code and the Magistrate, after holding 
a preliminary enquiry, issued summons to the second respondent and 
another accused. 
The Prosecuting Deputy •Superintendent of Police, in his capacity as 
Public Prosecutor for the District, filed an application before the Trial 
Magistrate under s. 494 Cr.P.C. for permission to withdraw from the 
prosecution of the case and for discharging the second respondent on 
the ground that it had come to his knowledge during an investigation of 
an earlier complaint that the second respondent was innocent and that 
he had been falsely involved in ~he case by the complainant. This appli-
cation was opposed by the first respondent, but the trial ~iagistrate grant-
t'CI permission for the withdrawal of the case and the Session~ Judge, in 
revision, upheld ·this decision. 
However, the High Court, iP, appeal, accepted the contentions of the 
first respondent and held that a Public Prosecutor cannot withdraw under 
s. 494 of the Code from the prosecution of a case pending before the 
Magistrate, instituted upon a private complaint despite the compiainanl's 
objection to the withdrawal of the case. 
On a further appeal to this Court, 
HELD: As the prosecution was: being conducted by the complainant, 
the High Court was right in holding that the Public Prosecutor was not 
entitled to file an application for withdrawal. [360 E] 
The reasonable interpretation to be placed. upon s. 494 is that it is 
only the Public Prosecutor who is in cha·rge of a particular case and· is 
actually conducting the prosecution that can file an application Jnder that · 
section seeking permission to withdraw from the µrosecution. (360 C-D] 
There was no force in the conten.ti\1n that the' expression 'the Public 
Prosecutor' in s. 494 is to be understood as referring to any person who is 
a Public Prosecutor, whether he is a Public Prosecutor appointed generally. 
under s. 492(1) or for the purpose of a particular case, as contemplated 
under s. 492(2) of the Code. If any Public Prosecutor, who bad nothing 
to do with a particular case, is held entitled to file an apvlication under 
s. 494 the result will be very anomalous in that if there are two Public 
Prosecutors appointed · for a particular Court, and one of the Public 
Prosecutors is conducting the prosecution in a particular case, and desi'res 
to go on with the proceedings, it will be open to the other Public Prosecu-
Dr to ask for withdrawal from the prosecution. [359 F; 360 A-BJ 
State of Bihar v. Ram Naresh Pandey [1957] S.C.R. 279; Queen 
Express v. Murarji Gokuldass I:L.R. (1889) 13 Born, 389; State v. 
Atmaram M. Ghosale, I.L.R. [1965] Born. 103; referred to. 
348 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[!967] 2 S.C.R. 
Gu/Ii Bhagat v. Narain Singh, l.L.R. (1923] 2 Pat. 708; Amar Narain 
A 
v. State of Rajasthan A.l.R. 1952 Raj. 42; Pratap Chand v. Beharl Lal, 
A.LR. 1955 J & K 12; distinguished; 
Sher Singh v. litendranat/J, A.LR. 1931 Cal. 607, disaporoved; 
Ratansha Kal'asji v. Be/:ramsha Pardiwala, l.L .• t. (1945] Born. 141, 
approved. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 97 
of 1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
December 20, 1965 of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Revision 
No. 671 of 1965. 
Bishan Narain and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant. 
Nuruddin Ahmed, Ani/ Kumar Sab/ok and R. B. Datar, for res-
pondent No. I. 
· 
S. V. Gupte, Solicitor-Genera/ and A. G. Pudissery, for the 
Advocate-General for the State of Kerala. 
R. H. Dhebar and S. P. Nayyar, for the Advocate-General for 
the State of Gujarat. 
O. P. Rana, for the Advocatt-Chneral for the State of U1tar 
Pradesh. 
Naunit Lal, for the Advocate-General for the State of Assam. 
A. V. Rangam, for the Advocate-General for the State of 
Madras. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Vaidialingam, J. The question that arises for consideration 
in this criminal appeal, by special leave, is regarding the right of a 
Public Prosecutor to file an application, under s. 494 of t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.