Summary
Withdrawal of a double-murder prosecution could not be justified by the accused’s election to the Legislative Assembly or supposed good public image. After hearing the beneficiary, the Supreme Court set aside the withdrawal as to him and allowed the victim’s pending revision. It directed the High Court to decide the other accused’s revisions and return the original trial record so that the long-delayed trial could proceed.
Issues
- Whether election to the Legislative Assembly and claimed good public image justified withdrawal of a serious prosecution.
- What relief was required where repeated adjournments and retention of the trial record had stalled the proceedings for years.
Provisions considered
- Section 321, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The trial court’s consent to withdrawal concerning Chhote Singh was set aside because political standing and supposed public reputation did not establish public interest in abandoning this double-murder prosecution. (¶¶ 11, 12, 14, 15, 16)
Held
- Election to the Legislative Assembly does not establish an accused’s good character or justify withdrawal of prosecution. In a grave case involving a charge-sheet after investigation, reliance on political standing or public image could not support withdrawal in public interest. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- Repeated adjournments had enabled dilatory tactics and stalled the trial. The prolonged pendency of revisions and political influence required intervention rather than another routine request for expedition. (¶¶ 3, 11, 13)
- The beneficiary of withdrawal was served and heard on merits. The Court therefore allowed the victim’s pending revision and set aside the trial court’s withdrawal order only insofar as it concerned that respondent. It did not decide the merits of the other accused’s withdrawal applications, as they were not before it. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
- The High Court must decide the remaining withdrawal revisions in light of these observations, retain copies rather than the original trial record and return that original record for expeditious conclusion of the nearly three-decade-old trial. (¶¶ 17, 18)
Result
Appeal and Criminal Revision No.2107 of 2012 allowed; withdrawal order set aside only for respondent 2. High Court directed to decide the other revisions and return the original record to enable expeditious trial.