Judgment Anand Prasad Sinha, J. 1. This application is directed against the order dated 18.3.1980 passed in G.R. Case No. 865 of 1976, by Judicial Magistrate, who has allowed the application of the Additional Public Prosecutor for withdrawal of a criminal case and simultaneously the accused persons have been discharged. 2. It appears that on the basis of a first information report, which is Annexure-1 to the petition, a case was registered for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. That gave rise to G.R. Case No. 865 of 1976. The case was pending in the Couit of a Judicial Magistrate, Purnea. 3. Subsequently, a petition was filed by the Additional Public Prosecutor, who was in charge of the prosecution for the withdrawal of the case. It will be relevant to quote the relevant paragraphs of the petition, which run as follows: 1. That the prosecution does not warn to proceed with the case. 2. That the Deputy Collector in charge legal section, Purnea has communicated to me that the D.M. Purnea has ordered this case to be withdrawn vide Memo. No. 332 legal, dated 11.2.1980, Purnea. It is therefore prayed that your honour may be pleased to allow this case to be withdrawn under Sec.321 Cr.P.C. 4 The learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner who was the first informant, has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the Additional Public Prosecutor hvcharge of the prosecution should have applied independent mind with regard to the question of withdrawal of the criminal case and also the learned Court below should have consented for the same. 5. I find sufficient force in the two contentions. It will appear from the petition of the Additional Public Prosecutor that he has mechanically filed an application for withdrawal of the case on the main ground that he has been asked to do the same by the Deputy Collector-in-charge, Legal Section, communicating him that the District Magistrate had desired for the withdrawal of the case. 6. It will clearly indicate that the Additional Public Prosecutor had not applied his mind at all. In this connections reference is made to a decision in Subhash Chander V/s. The State (Chandigarh Admit.) and Ors. -- . 6. It will clearly indicate that the Additional Public Prosecutor had not applied his mind at all. In this connections reference is made to a decision in Subhash Chander V/s. The State (Chandigarh Admit.) and Ors. -- . It has been clearly laid down in this case that the Public Prosecutor in charge of the case has to apply his mind on the question of withdrawal of any criminal case and simply because he has been asked to do so by the District Magistrate, that will not give any legal validity to the prayer made for the withdrawal of the case. 7. The word consent used in Sec.321 of the Code had special meaning. The concerned Magistrate is not supposed to or expected to pass any order on such petition of withdrawal mechanically, but he has also to apply his mind and consider all relevant facts Including the necessity of withdrawal in the public interest. 8. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate has given reasons that since a case of criminal breach of trust or cheating was in between the two individuals and that being so that is of not public importance. I am afraid, the approach of the learned Magistrate is entirely erroneous. Fora criminal case, State is the effective party and any informant of a cognizable case has no ind ependant identity so far prosecution is concerned, but it becomes States plea and the State becomes the prosecutor because in such cases, the maintenance of lawful conduct of any citizen is the responsibility of the State. 9. That being so, even a case in which the element of criminal breach of trust or cheating is involved, the full responsibility is of the State for the prosecution and that too, when a first information report has been filed. That being so, the Magistrate has completely misconducted himself by observing that since two private individuals arc concerned, the case was not of public importance. 10. In the result, the application is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back before the Magistrate.