The Public Prosecutor Vs. Mandangi Varjuno and ors.

The Public Prosecutor vs Mandangi Varjuno and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Jul 11, 1975

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/432090

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/432090
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: Madhusudan Rao, J.
Decided On: Jul 11, 1975
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ - Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained ...

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Mandangi Varjuno and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: 1976CriLJ46

Excerpt

.....of the act. whatever products are declared as such by the government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the act. consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under section 3(1) read with section 3(3) of the act on them it is competent for the government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [per p.s. narayana, j,(dissenting)]if livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. in view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. sections 4 & 3: [v.v.s. rao, n.v. ramana & p.s. narayana, jj] declaration of notified area held, it is only under section 3 that government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. it is very conspicuous that section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. thus, except ordaining government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under section 3(3) of the act nowhere much less under section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. when the legislature has..........an examination of the various provisions of the old code as also the new code, it does not appear that there is any provision for the withdrawal of a warrant case or a sessions case and much less an appeal. as provided under section 248 of the old code and section 257 of the new code, the complainant may be permitted by a magistrate to withdraw the complaint against the accused at any time before a final order is passed in a summons-case. section 240 of the old code and section 224 of the new code provide that when a charge containing more heads than one is framed against the same person, and when a conviction has been had on one or more of them the complainant, or the officer conducting the prosecution, may, with the consent of the court, withdraw the remaining charge or charges. even when a pardon is tendered by a competent authority the acceptance of the tendered pardon does not amount to a withdrawal of the case against the person accepting the pardon. even section 333 of the code which is since deleted in the new code empowered the advocate general in trials before the high court to enter a nolle prosequi and not a withdrawal. section 494. cr.p.c. of the old code reads as follows:494: any public prosecutor may. with the consent of the court in cases tried by jury before the return of the verdict, and in other cases before the judgment is pronounced, withdraw from the prosecution of any person either generally or in respect of any one or more of the offences for which he is tried; and upon such withdrawal;(a) if it is made before a charge has been framed, the accused shall be discharged in respect of such offence or offences;(b) if it is made after a charge has been framed or when under this code no charge is required, he shall be acquitted in respect of such offence or offences.section 321 of the new code is as follows:321 withdrawal from prosecution:the public prosecutor or assistant public prosecutor in charge of a case may with the consent of the court,.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Madhusudan Rao, J.

1. This is a petition by the Public Prosecutor, requesting that the court may be pleased to accord permission under Section 321. Cr.P.C. for withdrawal of the case against the respondents who are the accused 1 to 3 and 18 in Sessions Case No. 17 of 1973 of the Visaka-patnam Division. After the trial before the Sessions Court, the respondents 1 to

3 who are the accused 1 to 3 In the case and another person (the fourth accused) have been convicted under Sections 148, 458. 326 and 395/397. I.P.C. and were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. The fourth respondent i.e. A-18 was convicted under Section 411, I.P.C. and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. The four respondents and the other convicted accused (A-4) have preferred the Criminal Appeal No. 593 of 1973 against their convictions and sentences and the same is pending before this Court.

2. The question for consideration is whether permission can be accorded under Section 321. Cr.P.C. to the Public Prosecutor for withdrawing the case against the accused 1 to 3 and 18.

3. On an examination of the various provisions of the old Code as also the new Code, it does not appear that there is any provision for the withdrawal of a warrant case or a Sessions Case and much less an appeal. As provided under Section 248 of the Old Code and Section 257 of the new Code, the complainant may be permitted by a Magistrate to withdraw the complaint against the accused at any time before a final order is passed in a summons-case. Section 240 of the old Code and Section 224 of the new Code provide that when a charge containing more heads than one is framed against the same person, and when a conviction has been had on one or more of them the complainant, or the officer conducting the prosecution, may, with the consent of the court, withdraw the remaining charge or charges. Even when a pardon is tendered by a competent authority the acceptance of the tendered pardon does not amount to a withdrawal of the case against the person accepting the pardon. Even Section 333 of the Code which is since deleted in the new Code empowered the Advocate General in trials before the High Court to enter a nolle prosequi and not a withdrawal. Section 494. Cr.P.C. of the Old Code reads as follows:

494: Any Public Prosecutor may. with the consent of the Court in cases tried by jury before the return of the verdict, and in other cases before the judgment is pronounced, withdraw from the prosecution of any person either generally or in respect of any one or more of the offences for Which he is tried; and upon such withdrawal;

(a) If it is made before a charge has been framed, the accused shall be discharged in respect of such offence or offences;

(b) If it is made after a charge has been framed or when under this Code no charge is required, he shall be acquitted in respect of such offence or offences.

Section 321 of the new Code is as follows:

321 Withdrawal from prosecution:

The Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may with the consent of the court, at any lime before the judgment is pronounced, withdraw from the prosecution of any person either generally, or in respect of any one or more of the offences for which he is tried; end upon such withdrawal;

(a) if it is made before a charge has been framed, the accused shall be discharged in respect of such offence or offences;

(b) if it is made after a charge has been framed, or when under this Code no charge is required he shall be acquitted in respect of such offence or offences:

Provided....

Section 321 of the new Code is substantially the same as Section 494 of the old Code, except the deletion of the provision in regard to cases tried by jury. The section provides for 'the withdrawal from the prosecution' and not 'the withdrawal of the prosecution'. Withdrawal from a prosecution means, retiring or stepping back or retracting from the prosecution in other words, withdrawal of appearance from the prosecution or refraining from conducting or proceeding with the prosecution. No doubt, when the Court consents to the Public Prosecutor withdrawing from the prosecution, the accused shall be either discharged or acquitted as provided in Clauses (a) and (b).

4. Further, it is abundantly clear from the words of the section that the withdrawal from the prosecution no doubt with the consent of the court, can be made only before the judgment is pronounced in respect of the offence for which the accused is tried. The section postulates only a stage before the pronouncement of judgment by the trial court and does not take in its ambit, cases where judgments have been pronounced by the trial courts. The section can be invoked at any stage of & case, but the last stage is 'before the judgment is pronounced' and not 'after the judgment is pronounced' by the trial court. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has held in Anania Lal Sinha v. Jahiruddin AIR 1927 Cal 816 : 28 Cr; LJ 833) that the Public Prosecutor has no right at the appellate stage of a case to present any petition for withdrawal under Section 494, Cr.P.C. Speaking for the Bench Ghose, J. observed:

To say that the Public Prosecutor is authorised under the terms of this section to withdraw from the prosecution after the accused had been convicted is to state something, which is not only on the face of it starting but absurd, having regard to the words of Sections 494, Criminal P.

5. The petition for the withdrawal of the case against the four respondents is therefore not maintainable and it is accordingly dismissed. The Criminal Appeal No. 593 of 1973 shall be disposed of on merits.

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh · 1975 Same Parties The Public Prosecutor vs Mandangi Varjuno and ors. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Madhusudan Rao, J.

Criminal