IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3372 of 2008() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 4272/2007 IN CC.1123/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.31:- --------------------------------------------- HAREENDRANATH, AGED 39, S/O PURUSHOTHAMAN PILLAI, TC.17/1855 (10), RAMYA , NALLATH TEMPLE ROAD, POOJAPPURA P.O., TRIVANDRUM 695 012. BY ADV. SMT.M.MOLLY JACOB SMT.RABIA BEEGAM.T.K RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT --------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.10300/2008 IN CRL.R.P.NO.3372/2008 17.10.2008 DISMISSED Sd/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE /true copy/ P.S to Judge M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO.3372 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 17th day of October,2008 ORDER This petition is filed under section 397 read with section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram in C.M.P.4272/2007 a petition filed under section 321 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the Assistant Public Prosecutor to withdraw the prosecution. Revision is filed by accused No.31 contending that when the State has decided to withdraw the case and the Assistant Public Prosecutor has applied his mind and filed an application to withdraw the case, learned Magistrate should have permitted the withdrawal of the case. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that only 4 witnesses remain to be examined and out of CRRP 3372/2008 2 the witnesses examined only two supported the prosecution and the trial is being proceeded with. 4. The argument of the learned counsel is that the application filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor establish that he has applied his mind and in such circumstance learned Magistrate should have allowed the application. Learned counsel read over the application filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor before the learned Magistrate. Learned Magistrate dismissed the application holding that there is nothing in the application to show that Assistant Public Prosecutor has applied his mind. What is stated in the application filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor is that Government has decided to withdraw the case and he had applied his mind. Why the case is to be withdrawn is not stated by the Assistant Public Prosecutor. There is no allegation in the petition that either in public interest or for the reason that there is no fair chance of a conviction, case is to be withdrawn. In such circumstance, in the absence of CRRP 3372/2008 3 any material in the application to show that the Assistant Public Prosecutor has applied his mind and discharged his function as a Prosecutor , learned Magistrate was justified in dismissing the application. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that only 4 witnesses remain to be examined and out of the witnesses examined only two supported the prosecution and the trial is being proceeded with. Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006