Judgment : These revisions arise from the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Wallajapet and the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Vellore, in C.C.Nos.104 of 1991 and 108 of 1991 on their files, permitting to withdraw the prosecution cases. .2. The second respondent in Criminal Revision Case No. 136 of 1992 was prosecuted under Secs.341 and 506, Part II of Indian Penal Code whereas in the said case, the accused were prosecuted under Secs. 147, 148, 323, 324, 435 and 506, Part II read with Sec. 149 of Indian Penal Code. In Criminal R.C. No.136 of 1992 when the process of trial was going on after examining the witness, the Assistant Public Prosecutor filed a memo under Sec. 321, Criminal Procedure Code, seeking permission of the court to withdraw the prosecution. In the other case, some of the accused did not appear and the summons were pending against them. At that stage the Assistant Public Prosecutor moved before the learned Magistrate under Sec. 321, Criminal Procedure Code to withdraw the prosecution. In both cases, the learned Magistrates have permitted withdrawal. This order is being challenged by the complainants of those cases, in these revisions. 3. As both the revisions relate to the similar order passed by the Magistrates under Sec.321, Criminal Procedure Code, they are taken up together and a common order is passed. 4. In Criminal R.C. No.136 of 1992, the learned counsel would argue that no reason is given in the memo of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for withdrawing this case and when the witnesses have been examined and the accused was in the midst of trial, without assigning any proper reason the prosecution case has been withdrawn by the state and this is against the considered view of the Supreme Court and therefore the order of the learned Magistrate has to be set aside. In the other revision, the learned Magistrate has given the reason that the case was pending nearly for 1 1/2 years and inspite of it the accused could not be brought before the court and therefore the request of the Assistant Public Prosecutor to withdraw the case was accepted. The learned Government Advocate herein does not oppose these revisions and he concedes that as proper reasons have not been given for withdrawing the case, they are liable to be set aside. .5. The learned Government Advocate herein does not oppose these revisions and he concedes that as proper reasons have not been given for withdrawing the case, they are liable to be set aside. .5. The Supreme Court and also this Court have considered the powers of the Courts under Sec. 321 of Criminal Procedure Code for granting permission to withdraw the prosecution and in all the decisions it is the uniform view that the Public Prosecutor is the best Judge to decide whether it was fit case for withdrawal and without the political favour and party pressures or like concerns, the Public Prosecutor has to apply his mind before seeking permission of the court to withdraw the case. Even though the decisions are to the effect that the court need not give a finding for the permission given to the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the case, there must be something to show that it was a fit case for withdrawal. Some times for the compromise between the parties, or on broader public interest, public harmony, and peace or changed social or political situation there may be necessities for the withdrawal of the prosecution. But in this case, no reason is assigned in Criminal R.C. No. 136 of 1992 for withdrawing the prosecution, especially when it was in the midst of the trial. In Criminal R.C.No.141 of 1992 the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner represents that there is factual error in the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, who has observed that the case was pending for nearly 18 years, though actually it was pending on his file only for five months and for the appearance of the accused, this five months period cannot be said to be too long a period and even then, according to the learned counsel, withdrawing of the prosecution is not proper for the non-appearance of the accused. No other reason is given by the court below for giving permission to withdraw the case. In this case, the accused are facing the charges under Secs. 147, 148, 323, 324, 435 and also 506, Part II read with Sec. 149 of Indian Penal Code. When such a series of offences are alleged against these respondents/ accused, there must be acceptable and proper reason to withdraw the prosecution. In this case, the accused are facing the charges under Secs. 147, 148, 323, 324, 435 and also 506, Part II read with Sec. 149 of Indian Penal Code. When such a series of offences are alleged against these respondents/ accused, there must be acceptable and proper reason to withdraw the prosecution. For the simple reason that the accused did not not appear before court, it cannot be a ground for withdrawal of the prosecution, but proper steps could have been taken for securing the accused persons. 6. Launching of prosecution should not be either at the mercy of the state or at its likes and dis-likes. Complainants, who are the victims or aggrieved persons, set the law in motion to bring the culprits before the Court of law to deal with them according to law. The state in it’s role as the prosecution has the greatest responsibility in protecting the administration of Criminal Justice against possible misuse or abuse or any hindrance to the object of law. The Public Prosecutor acting for the state, therefore has to apply his mind as a free agent, uninfluenced by extraneous considerations and his request for permission to withdraw the prosecution can only be in the public interest, otherwise it will amount to the sinister purpose of defeating the object of Criminal Law. The court also being the guardian of law and ultimate repository of legislative confidence, has to exercise it’s discretion judiciously. The granting of permission under Sec. 321, Criminal Procedure Code shall be only on balanced consideration and not on mere asking of it. As I find no acceptable reasons for withdrawing these cases, the learned Magistrate ought not have allowed for withdrawing the prosecution cases. Even though it was argued before me that the learned Magistrates have exercised their discretion conferred on them under Sec.321, Criminal Procedure Code, and when it is not illegal, these revisions are not maintainable, I find that the reason given for withdrawal in Criminal R.C. No. 141 of 1992 appears to be incorrect, whereas in the other revision no reason is given for withdrawing the prosecution. Therefore, this Court has to exercise the revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the orders of the courts below, to set right the defect. 7. In the result, setting aside the orders of the learned Magistrates, the revisions are allowed. Therefore, this Court has to exercise the revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the orders of the courts below, to set right the defect. 7. In the result, setting aside the orders of the learned Magistrates, the revisions are allowed. These criminal cases will be restored to the file of the learned Magistrates concerned, and the trial will proceed according to law from the stage at which they were stopped.