Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court addressed a batch of matters arising from the aftermath of its Constitution Bench decision in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, which had suggested constitution of Screening or Review Committees to prevent misuse of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. The Government of Delhi constituted a High Power Committee under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary to review TADA prosecutions. The Committee recommended deletion of TADA charges in certain pending cases, and the Government conveyed its approval to the Director of Prosecution. The Special Additional Public Prosecutor filed applications under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the Designated Court for withdrawal of TADA charges, relying solely on the High Power Committee's recommendations. The Designated Court dismissed the applications, holding that administrative decisions cannot interfere with the judicial system. The appeals by special leave and a public interest writ petition challenged the Designated Court's orders and sought directions to permit withdrawal of all prosecutions recommended by the Review Committee. The core legal issue was the proper exercise of judicial discretion under Section 321 CrPC when the Public Prosecutor seeks withdrawal based on an administrative recommendation. The Supreme Court reiterated settled principles from State of Orissa v. Chandrika Mohapatra and Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar. It held that withdrawal from prosecution is not to be permitted mechanically; the Public Prosecutor must independently satisfy himself that each case is fit for withdrawal, and the court must exercise judicial discretion with the ultimate guiding consideration being the interest of administration of justice. However, the court also recognised that the initial invocation of TADA provisions was subject to government sanction, and a revised opinion of the government formed after scrutiny by the High Power Committee should not be lightly disregarded except for weighty reasons such as malafides or manifest arbitrariness. The court clarified that mere existence of prima facie material to support framing of charge is not by itself sufficient to refuse consent for withdrawal. The applications already made were not decided on the correct basis; therefore, fresh applications under Section 321 CrPC pursuant to the Review Committee recommendations were directed to be considered and decided by the Designated Courts in the manner indicated. The court also recorded that by an interim order dated 4.5.1995, it had directed the Designated Court to consider bail applications of accused in TADA withdrawal cases excluding TADA charges, and such bail would continue till conclusion of trial. The writ petition and appeals were disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Withdrawal from Prosecution - Section 321, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Judicial Discretion of Court - Withdrawal from prosecution is not to be permitted mechanically by the court on an application made by the Public Prosecutor; the ultimate guiding consideration must always be the interest of administration of justice - Held that the Designated Court was right in taking the view that withdrawal cannot be allowed solely on the basis of a Review Committee recommendation, and fresh applications must be considered on settled principles (Paras Not mentioned). B) Criminal Procedure - Role of Public Prosecutor - Section 321, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Executive Function Subject to Judicial Review - The Public Prosecutor must not act mechanically in discharge of statutory function; he must satisfy himself that each case is fit for withdrawal before seeking court's consent; discretion is neither absolute nor unreviewable and is subject to court's supervisory function - Held that the Public Prosecutor did not fully appreciate requirements of Section 321 when he relied solely on recommendations (Paras Not mentioned). C) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 22 - Review Committee Recommendations - Due Weight - The revised opinion of the Government formed on the basis of High Power Committee screening after scrutinising each case should not be lightly disregarded by the court except for weighty reasons such as malafides or manifest arbitrariness; mere existence of prima facie material to support framing of charge is not by itself sufficient to refuse consent for withdrawal - Held that applications for withdrawal of TADA charges pursuant to review must be decided giving due weight to Public Prosecutor's opinion (Paras Not mentioned). D) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Interim Directions - Bail applications of accused in TADA withdrawal cases to be considered excluding TADA charges; bail granted pursuant to order dated 4.5.1995 to continue till conclusion of trial - Held as interim measure (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether consent to withdrawal from prosecution under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be granted mechanically based solely on administrative recommendation; what principles govern consideration of withdrawal applications in TADA cases recommended by a Review Committee; and the scope of judicial review of the Public Prosecutor's discretion under Section 321.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the Designated Court was right in taking the view that withdrawal from prosecution is not to be permitted mechanically; the Public Prosecutor must independently satisfy himself that each case is fit for withdrawal; and the court must exercise judicial discretion with the interest of administration of justice as the touchstone. However, fresh applications under Section 321 CrPC pursuant to Review Committee recommendations were to be considered and decided by Designated Courts giving due weight to the Public Prosecutor's opinion and the revised government opinion, not lightly disregarding them except for weighty reasons like malafides or manifest arbitrariness, and mere existence of prima facie material to frame charge was not be treated as sufficient to refuse consent. The writ petition and appeals were disposed of accordingly, and the interim bail order dated 4.5.1995 was to continue till conclusion of trial.
Law Points
- Withdrawal from prosecution under Section 321 CrPC requires application of mind by Public Prosecutor and judicial satisfaction by court
- recommendation of Review Committee is a relevant factor but not conclusive
- court exercises supervisory function
- ultimate guiding consideration is interest of administration of justice
- mere existence of prima facie material to frame charge not sufficient to refuse consent
- revised opinion of Government based on High Power Committee screening deserves due weight except for mala fides or manifest arbitrariness
