The Honourable Supreme Court of lndia in fhe State of Kerala v. K.Ajith and othersl at Paragraph No

Petition under Section 528 ot BNSS Act, 2O23 praying that in the circumstances stated !n the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings including framing of charges in C.C.No.18 of 2016 on the file of Special Judge for Trial of SPE and ACB Cases, Karimnagar, in the interest of Justice, pending disposal of main Criminal Revision Case. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri C Hari Preeth Counsel for the Respondent : Sri T Bala Mohan Reddy, Special Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER ----.7 THE HONC IJRABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SR{DEVI CR MINAL REVISION CASE No.67 of 2025 ORDER This () .rrinal Revision Case is filed by the oetitioner- accused offir r'':r seeking to set aside the impugnect Order dated 02 12'.'. l:24 in CRL.tV.P.No 1123 of 2024 in C O.No.'18 of 2016 orr t'rr,r file of the learned Special Judge f lr Trial of SPE and ltr-) I Cases, Karimnagar (for short 'the leiarrred trial Courl') wlt,:t ,rin the application filed by the prosecution seeking t: ,vithdraw the prosecution of the cetitioner- accused off ic , r, was dismissed 02 F ,rard Sri C.Hari Preeth, learned counsel for the petitioner ers rruell as Sri T. Bala tVlohan Reddy. earned Special Ptrtrli : Prosecutor appearing for the responde'nt-Anti- Corruption 3 r.eau and perused the record 03 [- r;arned counsel for the petitioner subnritled that the learnr:,: trial Court has erroneously dismissed the applicatior fi ::d by the prosecution in a mechanical manner without app,l1 i rg judicial mind Hence, he prayed tcr quash the impugrrr:c )rder by setting aside the same 2

04. Learned Special public prosecutor appearing for the respondent-Anti-Corruption Bureau submitted that the prosecution has filed the application seeking withdrawal of prosecution against the petitioner-accused officer in view of a. Government Order vide G.O.Rt.No.169, School Education (Vigilance) Department dated 09.O1 .2023 whereby a decision was taken by the Government to withdraw prosecution sanction order accorded against the petitioner- accused officer vide Education (SE-Vig.1(1)) Departrnent dated 16.04.2014. Hence, he prayed for one more opportunity to file appropriate application in detail, before the learned trial Court.

05. The Honourable Supreme Court of lndia in fhe State of Kerala v. K.Ajith and othersl at Paragraph No.23 held that: "23. The principles which emerge from the decisions of this Court on the withdrawal of a prosecution under Secfion 321 of the CrPC can now be formulated: (!) Section 321 entrusts the decision to withdraw from a prosecution to the public prosecutor but the consent of the court is required for a withdrawal of the prosecution; (!t) The public prosecutor may withdraw from a prosecution not merely on the ground of paucity of 'MAttu/sc/o+82tzo2t = 3 reas()/ ls evidctnc ) but also to further the broad ends of puL'lic justice, LA Th; public prosecutor must formulate an :lr>n, oO,n,on before seeking the consent of indeSter ' ro withdraw from the prosecution; the cl,-rt (, the mere fact that the initiative has r:one (iv) llth frc> m t,'t t :.Tovernment will not vitiate an application ior ,,tl the court must make an effori to elic,.t t\e witha r.at i'tr withdrawal so as to ensure that the pubric ()r was satisfied that the withdrawal o' t,\e rrtn ls necessary for good and rele'vent (),)iding whether to grant its consent to a 'al the court exercrses a judicial function but '-,en descibed to be supervisory in nature. ?ciding whether to grant ifs consenl the' L;ot.,rt :;ittisfied that: "nction of the public prosecutor has not lteen l,i exercised or that it is not an atternStt lo wrth the normal course of justice lcr tr, reasons or purposes; -'Dplication has been made in good fait,1, in : st of public policy and justice, and not t'o ';tifle the process of law; application does not suffer from :;ut,h 'trcs or illegalities as would cause manife:;t i consent were to be given; t grant of consent sub-seryes the ation of justice; and ;rcrmission has not been sought with e,n Lirpose unconnected with the vindicatrot r>f thich the public prosecutor is duty bound to p ro s(t(: t) prosc,( u reas(rrr.s fu)lur withdritt it ha:; L Before c must t t> (a). Ttre imprcp,e inte rfere illegittntt (b) Tne the irrtet thwart o, @ l-t,e improori, injustrce (d l'tt admiri.;t (e) T\:' ulteric r S the lan' mainta,n ful ltl't rl ' Cetermining whether the withdrawal <-tf the prose)ttt:,rr subseryes the administration of justtct,, the cc't,n rttould be justified in scrutinizing the nalur,> and g-zrv I't of the offence and its impact upon ptblt: life e: p,r: )tally where matters involving public funds and the ci,;charge of a pubtic trust are implicated and 4 (vii) ln a situation where both the tial judge and the revisional couft have concurred in granting or refusing consent, this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Aiicle 136 of the Constitution would exercise caution before disturbing concurrent findings. The Court may in exercise of the well-settled principles attached to the exercise of this juisdiction, inteiere in a case where there has been a failure of the tial judge or of the High Court to apply the correct principles in deciding whether to grant or withhotd consent."

06. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including submissions made by the learned counsel for either side, and in view of the settled principle of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia in the above decision, the impugned Order is hereby set aside and this Court deems it appropriate to direct the prosecution to file a detailed application under Section 321 o'f the Code of Criminal Procedure, incorporating the cogent and proper reasons and materlal seeking withdrawal of prosecution against the petitioner-accused officer. On such application being filed, the learned trial Court shall consider the same afresh, on merits and pass appropriate reasoned orders, in accordance with law 5 Ol 'n th the above observations, this Criminal Revision Cas r ls disposed of As a s:quel, pending miscellaneous applicati,:ns, if any, shall star il closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- M. MANJULA DEPUTTY REGISTRAR SECT{T)N OFFICER To,

1. The Special JuCl e: for Trial of SPE and ACB Cases, Karimnagar 2. Two CCs to S.i -I llala Mohan Reddy, Special Public Prosecutor High Court for the State of T, langana at Hyderabad [OUT] 3. One CC to Sri O iari Preeth, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copiers ADK/plp HIGH COURT DATED:31 10112025 ORDER CRLRC.No.67 c,f 2025 -..:1 " =-- z. 1 nt. ! J\. /5l4 ) I i 2 3 fiA( ZfrZs ((\( D r)r.. \-:i , /,1 :Y{L: \i : -l= =i7- t DISPOSING OF THE CRLRC 7 4.,r5 ,-s747zi