JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated November 11, 1978, of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi, refusing the application of the Public Prosecutor under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to withdraw from the prosecution. 2. The occurrence in which the application Under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed, took place on April 26, 1977, when the workers of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, were on strike. It is alleged that some of the workers were on hunger strike and were sitting under a 'Shamiana' just opposite the office of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board at Rewdhar. Gulab Singh, Assistant Engineer came in a car along with some other employees of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, and it is alleged that the accused-petitioner stopped the car and Chain Singh who was inside the car, was taken out and he was abused. He was made to sit on a donkey. His face was blackened and in that condition he was taken in a round of the city. Chain Singh because unconscious and fell down from the donkey. A case was registered against the accused-persons. It appears that when the strike ended, the Government of Rajasthan took a decision to withdraw all the cases which occurred during the strike period except the cases of violence. The matter was left to the discretion of the Collector, Sirohi, who, directed the Assistant Public Prosecutor to withdraw the prosecution. The learned Magistrate holding that only such cases in which violence was not involved, were ordered to be withdrawn, and because, this was a case of violence, therefore, he could not allow the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the case as it was not in the interest of administration of justice. 3. Under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a 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Prosecutor in charge of a case may, with the consent of the Court, at any time before the judgment is pronounced, withdrawn from the prosecution of any person. In State of Orissa v. Chandrika Mohapatra and others, 1976 (4) SCC 250 their Lordships have observed that if there are such circumstances which clearly show that the object of administration of justice would not be advanced or furthered by going on with the prosecution, the Court may give its consent to the Assistant Public Prosecutor to withdraw. In State of Orissa v. Chandrika Mohapatra and others, 1976 (4) SCC 250 their Lordships have observed that if there are such circumstances which clearly show that the object of administration of justice would not be advanced or furthered by going on with the prosecution, the Court may give its consent to the Assistant Public Prosecutor to withdraw. Their Lordships further observed that the ultimate guiding consideration must always be the interest of administration of justice and that is the touchstone on which the question must be determined whether the prosecution should be allowed to be withdrawn. 4. In cases of labour troubles when a settlement is arrived at and the Public Prosecutor decides to withdraw from the case, it is in the interest of administration of justice if consent of the court is given to the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the case. Industrial peace and harmony are very necessary in institutions like the Rajasthan State Electricity Board. The workers had gone on strike in connection with their various demands. In the instant case, it appears to be in the interest of administration of justice if the Public Prosecutor is allowed to withdraw from the case, and therefore, the learned Magistrate should have allowed the application of the Public Prosecutor. 5. In the result, I allow the revision petition, and the consent of the Court is granted to the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the Prosecution. The case against the accused, is a summons case. No charge is to be framed and the accused is acquitted of the charge levelled against him.Revision allowed. *******