This Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 5.10.77 of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Belonia, South Tripura District, passed in G. R case No. 63 of 1975. The order of the learned court was passed on the prayer of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I shall presently reproduce both the petition and the order of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned court respectively. 2) On 3rd March, 1975 at about 11 A. M. there was a law and order problem and the present petitioner, who at all relevant time, was Sub-Inspector of Police went to the place of occurrence along with necessary police force to maintain law and order. It is alleged that the crowd pelted stones, tried to snatch away the revolver from the petitioner and ultimately the police party had to resort to firing, as a result of which one person died. First Information Report was duly filed and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted. Thereafter on 12.3.75, one Mr. Sutradhar filed a complaint petition before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Belonia, South Tripura, under sections 302/201/323 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner and 7 (seven) other persons and the said case was registered as case No. C.R.49 of 1975, which is now pending for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Tripura, and the case has been numbered as Sessions Trial No. 4 (ST/B)/81. 3) While the earlier case in which charge-sheet was submitted being case No. GR. 63/75 was pending before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Belonia, the impugned order was passed on 5.10.77 and the said order is reproduced below :- “5.10.77 A.P.P. S.R. Biswas is present. 3 accd. persons are present. The date was for appearance of the accd. persons but L/A.P.P. by a petition prays to allow him to withdraw the case. Heard, considered. The case withdrawn and the accds. are discharged." The said order was passed on the basis of a petition filed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor (Annexure 'F' to the petition ) and the contents of the said petition run as follows :- “In pursuance of Govt. order, 1 like to withdraw this case from prosecution with the consent of the Court." 4. The only point for consideration in the present petition is whether the impugned order dated 5.10.77 is tenable in law. order, 1 like to withdraw this case from prosecution with the consent of the Court." 4. The only point for consideration in the present petition is whether the impugned order dated 5.10.77 is tenable in law. Admittedly, the said order was passed under section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short, 'the Code' which inter alia, empowers the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor to withdraw any prosecution with the consent of the court. This Section 321 came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in different cases and the principle for withdrawal is well settled. 5. In Subhash Chander vs. State & others, (1980) 2 SCC, 155 Justice Krishna Iyer speaking for the Court pointed out that ''Even the course of criminal justice cannot be thwarted by the Executive however high the accused, however sure the Government feels a case is false, however unpalatable the continuance of the prosecution to the powers-that be who wish to scuttle court justice because of hubris, affection or other noble or ignoble consideration..........the Court is monitor, not servitor, and must check to see if the essentials of the law are not breached, without, of course, crippling or usurping the power of the Public Prosecutor". In M.N. Sankarayarayanan Nair v. P.V Balakrishnan & others, (1972) 1 SCC, 318 the Court held that "The essential consideration which is implicit in the grant of the power is that it should be in the interest of administration of justice." Same view was also expressed in State of Orissa vs. Chandrika Mohapatra & Others, (1976) 4 SCC, 250. In Rajendra Kumar Jain vs. State, (1980) 3 SCC, 435 the Supreme Court held that it shall be the duty of the Court to appraise itself of the reasons which prompt the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution and the Court has a responsibility and stake in the administration of criminal justice and so has the Public Prosecutor. Both have a duty to protect the administration of criminal justice against possible abuse or misuse by the Executive by report to the provisions of Section 321 of the Code. 6. Both have a duty to protect the administration of criminal justice against possible abuse or misuse by the Executive by report to the provisions of Section 321 of the Code. 6. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, it is clear that Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may withdraw from the prosecution of any person but this power to withdraw from the prosecution is not an unfettered or unrestricted power because it can be exercised only with the consent of the Court. The Public Prosecutor or the Assistant Public Prosecutor has to make out some ground which would advance or further the cause of Public justice. I he function of the Court in arriving at a decision whether ' to allow withdrawal of prosecution or not is a judicial function and it has to be exercised with reference to materials before the Court and not mechanically. It may be made clear that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in which an application for such withdrawal can be made legitimately and it will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But the main guiding principle would be to promote the ends of justice.") 7. Coming back to case in hand I find that no reason whatsoever has been given by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. (The impugned order of the learned Court is also mechanical and on the face of it is clear that the court did not apply its mind before allowing the prosecution to withdraw the case. There is nothing on record to show that the impugned order was passed to promote the ends of justice. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, which I hereby do. 8. As both the cases arising out of the same occurrence are pending, I hereby direct that to meet the ends of justice the learned District 'Judge, (South Tripura, shall look into the matter and if possible, shall entrust both the cases to be tried by the same court and as both the cases are pending for a long time every efforts should be made to dispose of the cases as early as possible. 9. In the result, the petition is allowed and the rule is made absolute. Sd/- Judge