Judgment S. Shamsul Hasan, J. 1. This application is directed against an order dated 30.11.1977 passed by Shri Gorakh Nath Singh, Judicial Magistrate First class, Jahanabad in G. R. Case no.642 of 1 76/tr. No.516 of 1977. Theprosecution case is not required to be stated for the disposal of this application The impugned order arises out of a petition filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor for withdrawing the prosecution against all the accused persons on trial. The order states that the Assistant Public Prosecutor has filed a sanction letter of the district Magistrate, Gayafor withdrawing the case and it is stated that in the interest of administration, the Assistant Public Prosecutor is allowed to withdraw the case. 2. Opposite party nos.2 to 6 were facing trial in the court below for certain offences said to have been committed by them on 23.6.1976 An application before the Magistrate was filed under section 321 of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973. The relevant portion of section 321 reads as follows "the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may, with the consent of the Court, at any time 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 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. " The proviso is not relevant for the purpose of this case. 3 This order of the learned Magistrate is clearly against the well-known principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh and others V/s. Slate of Bihar, ( AIR 1977 SC 2265 ). It has been held in that decision as follows: "the sale consideration for the Public Prosecutor when he decides to withdraw from a prosecution is the larger factor of the administration of justice not political favours nor party pressures nor like concerns. Of course, the interests of public justice being the paramount consideration they may transcend and overflow the legal justice of the particular litigation". Of course, the interests of public justice being the paramount consideration they may transcend and overflow the legal justice of the particular litigation". It further states as follows : "the statutory responsibility for deciding upon withrawal squarely rests on the Public Prosecutor. It is non-negotiable and cannot be bartered away in favour of those who may be above him on the administrative side. "the Criminal Procedure Code is the only matter of the Public Prosecutor and he has to guide himself with reference to Criminal Procedure code only. So guided, the consideration which must weigh with him is, whether the broader cause of public justice will be advanced or retarded by the withdrawal or continuance of the prosecution. As we have already explained, public justice may be much wider conception than the justice in a particular case. Here, the Public prosecutor is ordered to move for withdrawal. This is not proper for a District Magistrate to do. Indeed, it is not proper to have the Public Prosecutor ordered about. It is entirely within the discretion of the Public Prosecutor. It may be open to the district Magistrate to bring to the notice of the Public Prosecutor materials and suggests to him to consider whether the prosecution should be withdrawn or not. He cannot command where he can only command. " In this case it is clear that the Public Prosecutor has not exercised his own discretion in the matter and is clearly guided by the order, described as sanction, of the District Magistrate. In this case the order shows that the District Magistrate has directed the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the case, which the Assistant public Prosecutor has obeyed. The independent judgment of the Assistant public Prosecutor in regard to the desirability of the withdrawal of the ease has not been indicated at all. The reason stated in the order also is not justifiable reason i e in the interest of administration. No case can be withdrawn in the interest of administration. As I have said above, this order of the magistrate is contrary to the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, and is, therefore, to be quashed. 4 This application is accordingly, allowed and the impugned order dated 30.11.1977 is set aside. The case is remitted back for trial by the Judicial magistrate, First Class, Jahanabad. As I have said above, this order of the magistrate is contrary to the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, and is, therefore, to be quashed. 4 This application is accordingly, allowed and the impugned order dated 30.11.1977 is set aside. The case is remitted back for trial by the Judicial magistrate, First Class, Jahanabad. This order will however, not preclude the Public Prosecutor to make a fresh application for withdrawal of the case, if he thinks proper in accordance with the well-known principles laid down by the Supreme Court referred to above. 5. In regard to opposite party no.7, Hari Lal Prasad Singh, he has already been discharged by the prior order and is not covered by the impugned order. Therefore, there was no necessity of adding him as a party in this case and his previous order of discharge will stand, subject to the remedy open to the parties in that regard. Application allowed.