Skip to content


In Re: R.V. Kaliappa Goundan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1926Mad296
AppellantIn Re: R.V. Kaliappa Goundan and ors.
Cases ReferredRajani Kanta Shaha v. Idris Thakur
Excerpt:
- order1. these are applications to revise the order of the additional sessions judge of coimbatore refusing permission to withdraw sessions cases nos. 51, 52 and 53 of 1925. dr. swaminathan contends that the learned judge has misdirected himself as to what he should do in a case of this kind. the application was made by the public prosecutor under section 494 and he gave certain reasons for the withdrawal of the cases. the sessions judge has considered the reasons and has come to the conclusion that these were not fit cases for withdrawal. he relies upon the decision in rajani kanta shaha v. idris thakur [1921] 48 cal. 1105 and says that where there is evidence against the accused which, if believed, would end in conviction, it would not be proper to give permission to withdrawn a case.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. These are applications to revise the order of the Additional Sessions Judge of Coimbatore refusing permission to withdraw Sessions Cases Nos. 51, 52 and 53 of 1925. Dr. Swaminathan contends that the learned Judge has misdirected himself as to what he should do in a case of this kind. The application was made by the Public Prosecutor under Section 494 and he gave certain reasons for the withdrawal of the cases. The Sessions Judge has considered the reasons and has come to the conclusion that these were not fit cases for withdrawal. He relies upon the decision in Rajani Kanta Shaha v. Idris Thakur [1921] 48 Cal. 1105 and says that where there is evidence against the accused which, if believed, would end in conviction, it would not be proper to give permission to withdrawn a case under Section 494. But that is not the only reason which should guide a Court in granting or refusing permission. In this case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has exercised his discretion in refusing per-mission, and we cannot say that he has improperly exercised his discretion. The reasons that he gives may not be the only reason for an order of this kind but, that is no ground for saying that he has not exercised a judicial discretion in granting or refusing permission to withdaw a case, Where a Judge has exercised judicial discretion in the proper way the High Court, will be very reluctant to interfere with his discretion and we, therefore, decline to interfere with his order. The petitions are dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //