Judgment 1. This petition in revision is directed against an. order dt. 4-6-1981 of learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, whereby permission was granted to the public prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution in Sessions Trial No. 137 of 1977, and Opposite Parties Nos. 2 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as accused) were discharged. 2. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner; learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, and learned counsel for the accused, as also carefully going though the records, I am of the considered view that there is merit in this petition and the same, therefore, deserves to be accepted. 3. According to prosecution, Awadesh Prasad petitioner is running a shop in Sector III of Bokaro Steel City, Chas, District Dhanbad. On 22-7-1974 at about 12.30 p.m., when he was inside his shop, and his brother Shatrughan Singh was on the counter, Brindaband Singh accused had come and asked for one tooth brush, one shaving soap and one tooth paste tube While making delivery of those articles to Brindaband Singh accused, he was required to pay for the same. Thereupon, a dispute had arisen over the price of Godrage Shaving Soap. The petitioner was charging Rs. 1.25 for the same. After losing temper, Brindaband Singh accused had started hurling filthy abuses at Shatrughan Singh, and had also given a few slaps to him. Then on hulla raised by Brindahan Singh accused, his co-accused, namely, Jaimangal Singh and Jai Govind Singh as also a few others had arrived at the shop and they were armed with Bhalas, Pharsas and lathis. With those weapons, the accused had inflicted injuries on heads and other parts of the bodies of the petitioner and his brother Shatrughan Singh. While leaving the shop, the accused had threatened the victims with dire consequences by making use of firm arms, and warned them not to open the shop from next day onwards. After the accused had gone away, it was found that they had also taken away Rs. 450.00 from the cash box. On the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner with the police, case was registered against the accused under Ss.307, 324, 379 and 153A and other offences of I.P.C. After completion of the investigation, they were charge-sheeted. 4. Records speak that subsequent to submission of final report under S.173 of the Cri. 450.00 from the cash box. On the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner with the police, case was registered against the accused under Ss.307, 324, 379 and 153A and other offences of I.P.C. After completion of the investigation, they were charge-sheeted. 4. Records speak that subsequent to submission of final report under S.173 of the Cri. P.C. 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code), the proceedings of the case were got intentionally dragged by the accused. After its commitment also the position had remained the same for years. At times all the accused would absent themselves, and at times some out of them. Records were received from the court of the Committing Magistrate as back as on 18-8-1977. Appearance of the accused were still being awaited in Sessions Court, Dhanbad, when the Public Prosecutor had on 6-10-1980 filed an application in the Court that the State Government had desired to withdraw this case for "public and State policy", and for his taking necessary action in the matter by making a prayer for withdrawal of the case. Along with that application, a copy of the communication received from the State Government was also annexed. Notice of that application was given to the petitioner. In reply thereto, the petitioner had, inter alia, submitted that the public prosecutor had not independently applied his mind in making that prayer for withdrawal of the case. It was only thereafter that the public prosecutor had filed another application on 8-5-1981 stating therein that he "had perused the entire case and was personally satisfied that the decision taken by the Government is perfectly valid and legal and is in public interest. After hearing the arguments on the application(s) of public prosecutor, the learned Sessions Judge, vide the impugned order, has allowed his withdrawal from the prosecution and accordingly, discharged the accused. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has come up in this revision application. 5. S.321 of the Code entitles the public prosecutor or the Assistant Public Prosecutor, in charge of a case, to withdraw from the prosecution of any person either generally or in respect of any one or more of the offences of which he is tried, with consent of the court, at any time before judgement is pronounced. 5. S.321 of the Code entitles the public prosecutor or the Assistant Public Prosecutor, in charge of a case, to withdraw from the prosecution of any person either generally or in respect of any one or more of the offences of which he is tried, with consent of the court, at any time before judgement is pronounced. As held in Sheonanda V/s. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 194 : (1983 Cri LJ 348), though withdrawal from prosecution is an executive function of the Public Prosecutor, in which statutory discretion is vested in him, the discretion is neither absolute nor unreviewable but it is subject to the Courts supervisory function. In fact, being an executive function, it would be subject to a judicial review on certain limited grounds like any other executive action. The authority with whom the discretion is vested must genuinely address itself to the matter before it, must not act under the dictate of any other body, must not do what it has been forbidden to do must act in good faith, must have regard to all relevant considerations, must not, be swayed by irrelevant consideration must not seek to promote purposes alien to the letter or to the spirit of legislation that gives it powers to act, and must not act arbitrarily and capriciously. Before an application is made for withdrawal from prosecution, the Public Prosecutor has to apply his mind to the facts of the case independently without being subject to any outside influence. The function of the Court in this respect is a limited one, and intended only to prevent the abuse. True that the State Government can suggest to the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution, but at the same time has to ask him to consider the matters on his own and only after satisfying himself about it, make the necessary application. However, in the instant case, such is not the position. A copy of the communication received in the matter from the State Government was annexed by the Public Prosecutor with his application under S.321 of the Code, and it was nowhere stated therein that he (Public Prosecutor) was to apply his independent mind also in making prayer to the court for withdrawal of the case. In fact, the Public Prosecutor had nowhere stated in his first application dt. 6-10-1980 about applying his mind independently in making the prayer. In fact, the Public Prosecutor had nowhere stated in his first application dt. 6-10-1980 about applying his mind independently in making the prayer. It was only when legal position was explained to him in the show cause, filed by the petitioner, pointing out that the Public Prosecutor was required to apply his independent mind before making the prayer, he (Public Prosecutor) had filed subsequent application on 2-5-1981 and made a passing reference in the same to the effect that he was personally satisfied that the decision of the State Government is valid, legal and is in public interest. That was an afterthought, to say the least, and only to fill in the lacunae. Again, it is not understood as to what "State and Public Policy", or "Public interest" is involved in the case, necessitating in issuance of direction by the State Government to the Public Prosecutor for withdrawing from the prosecution. Rather, interest of justice requires prosecution of the accused inasmuch as innocent shop-keepers were made the target of a ghastly attack by armed musclemen. The offences complained against involve individual acts of the culprits and no State and Public policy" is involved in the matter. Allowing the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution in a case of the type in land would amount to interfering with the administration of justice, and the Court of law is to refuse permission in such a case to the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution to prevent abuse. 6. S. Paswan V/s. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 877 : (1987 Cri LJ 793), relied upon on behalf of the accused, is not of any help to them. In that case also it has been observed that the Court has to satisfy itself that the executive function of the Public Prosecutor is not being improperly exercised or that it is not an attempt to interfere with the normal course of administration of justice for illegitimate reasons or purposes. Moreover the implication of the accused in that case was for political consideration and the public prosecutor had independently applied his mind, after going through the case diary and other records, before making an application for withdrawal from the prosecution. The instant case stands on a different footing altogether. 7. For reasons stated above, this petition is allowed. Moreover the implication of the accused in that case was for political consideration and the public prosecutor had independently applied his mind, after going through the case diary and other records, before making an application for withdrawal from the prosecution. The instant case stands on a different footing altogether. 7. For reasons stated above, this petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and the case is remitted to the trial Court for taking further proceedings in the same. 8. The accused through their counsel are directed to appear in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, on 14-10-1988. Record received from the Court below is ordered to be returned forthwith, so that it reaches in that Court before that date. As the case has already become very old, the trial Court will take all necessary steps in finally disposing of the same as expeditiously as possible.