THE STATE OF BIHAR versus RAM NARESH PANDEY

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 279 · Decided: 31-01-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B. JAGANNADHADAS, SYED JAFFER IMAM, P. GOVINDA MENON · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
279 
not think 
that that is the proper procedure to adopt 
and we therefore · allow the appeal, and remand this 
matter to the High Court to act in accord.ance with 
the provisions of s. 307(3) of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure and deal with the same in accordance with 
law. The appellants will continue on the same bail as 
before. 
Appeal allowed. 
THE STATE OF BIHAR 
tJ. 
RAM NARESH PANDEY 
(With Connected Appeal) 
[JAGANNADHADAS, 
JAFER 
lMMAM and 
GovINDA 
MENON JJ.] 
c,.iminal 
latl'-Proseetttion-Application 
for 
withdrawal 
by 
Pubiic Prosecutor-Consent 
of 
Court-Ftmdio11 of the 
Court in 
giving such consent--Case t1·iable by a Court of Session-Whether 
appiic111io11 
for 
ll'ithdrawal does not lie in the committal stage-
'Tria/', 'judgment', Meaning of-Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 
1898 (.let V of 1898), s. 494. 
Hy s .. 494 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 
1898: "Any 
Public Prosecutor 
may; with 
the 
consent of the Court, in cases 
tried by jury before 
the return of the Ye1dict, 
and in other cases 
before the judgment 
i~ pronounced, withdraw from 
the 
prosecu-
tion o( any person 
either 
generally 
or in respect of any one or 
more of the offences for which he is tried ; and upon such with-
drawal.-( a) if it is made before a charge has 
been framed, the 
accused shall be discharged in respect of such offence or offences ; 
(h) if it is made after a charge h1s been framed. or when under 
this Code no charge is required, he shall be acquitted in respect of 
such offence or offences." 
The prosecution of M. and others was 
bunched on the first 
information of the first respondent, 
and 
when the 
matter was 
pending before the Magistrate in the committal stage and before 
any evidence was actually 
taken, 
an application 
for 
the 
with-
drawal of M. from 
the 
prosecution 
wa.s 
made by 
the 
Public 
Prosecutor under s. 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the 
ground that "on the evidence aYailable it would 
not be just and 
expedient to proceed with the prosecution of M.'' The Magistrate 
was of the opinion tha~ there Was 
no reason 
to withhold the 
consent that was applied for 
and accordingly 
he discharged the 
accused. This order was upheld by 
the Sessions Judge, but on 
4-100 S. C. lndia/59 
1957 
1--
Ratan Rai 
v. 
State of Bihar 
Bhagwatij. 
1957 
January 31. 
1957 
Tiu Stat• of Bihar 
v. 
Ram Nartsh Pandt)' 
280 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1957] 
rcv1sron, filed· by 
the 
respondents, the High Court set aside the 
order and directed the Magistrate to record the evidence and then 
consider whether 
it establishe:d a 
prima facie case 
against the 
accused. 
The State appealed against the order of the High Court 
by special leave, 
while the 
respondents 
sought 
to 
support the 
order on the grounds ( l) that where the application for withdrawal 
of the prosecution is made on the ground of no evidence or no 
adequate or reliable evidence the Magistrate must hold a prelimi-
nary enguiry into the relevant evidence, 
and (2) that in a 
case 
tried by jury by a Court of Session, 
an application by the Public 
Prosecutor under s. 594 of the 
Code does not lie in the committal 
stage. 
Held : 
( l) Though the function 
of the 
Court in giving the 
consent under s. 594 of the Code is a judicial one, it is not 
neces~ 
sary that the discretion is to be exercised only with reference to 
1naterial gathered by the 
judicial 1nethod, and what the Court has 
to do is to satisfy itself that the executive function 
of the Public 
Prosecutor in applying for withdrawal of the prosecution has not 
been improperly exercised, or that it is not 
an attempt to 
inter~ 
fere with the nonnal course of justice for 
illegitimate reasons 
or 
purposes. 
(2) The word "tried" in s. 494 of the Code is not used in 
any limited sense and the section is wide enough 'to cover every 
kind of 
inquiry and trial, and applicable to all 
cases which are 
capable of terminating either in a discharge or in an acquittal 
according to the stage at which the application for withdrawal is 
made. 
An order of committal which terminates 
the 
proceeding so 
far as the inquiring Court is concerned is a "judgment" within the 
meaning of s. 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 
Giribala Dasu v. Mad<1· Gazi, {1932) I.L.R. 60 Cal. 233, and 
Viswanadham v. Madan Singh, I.L.R. (1949) Mad. 64, 
approved. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISD!crION: 
Criminal 
Appeals Nos. 53 and 54 of 1956. 
Appe~ls by special lea

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