Abdul Karim v.

State of Karnataka, (2000) 8 SCC 710

Facts

Veerappan, a notorious criminal, had been operating in a forest area spanning over 16,000 acres in
Karnataka and Tamil Nadu for more than a decade. He was accused of poaching elephants,
smuggling ivory and sandalwood, and committing heinous crimes such as murder and kidnapping,
including that of Kannada film actor Dr Rajkumar. In August 2000, Veerappan demanded the
withdrawal of charges against him and his associates under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities
(Prevention) Act (TADA) in exchange for the re- lease of Rajkumar. The Government of Karnataka
yielded to his demands, and the charges were withdrawn. The Special Public Prosecutor, acting on
the instructions of the government, sought the court's consent to withdraw the charges under
Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Issues

• Whether the order granting consent to withdraw charges under TADA met the requirements of
Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

• Whether the withdrawal of charges was made in good faith and served the public interest.

• Whether the withdrawal of charges was a ploy to facilitate the grant of bail to the accused.

Arguments

The Special Public Prosecutor argued that the withdrawal of charges was necessary to secure the
release of Rajkumar and prevent unrest between linguistic communities in Karnataka. The statement
of opposition submitted that no cogent reasons had been given for the decision to drop the TADA
cases. The opposition also contended that the withdrawal of charges was a ploy to facilitate the
grant of bail to the accused.

Decision

The Supreme Court held that the order granting consent to withdraw charges under TADA did not
meet the requirements of Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code and was bad in law. The court
also found that the withdrawal of charges was not made in good faith and served the public interest.
The court observed that the decision to withdraw charges was a panic reaction by overzealous
persons without proper understanding of the problem and consideration of the relevant material.
The court further held that the withdrawal of charges was a ploy to facilitate the grant of bail to the
accused.

Reasoning
The court reasoned that the application under Section 321 must aver that the Public Prosecutor is, in
good faith, satisfied, on consideration of all relevant material, that his withdrawal from the
prosecution is in the public interest and it will not stifle or thwart the process of law or cause
injustice. The court must be satisfied that the Public Prosecutor has considered the material and, in
good faith, reached the conclusion that his withdrawal from the prosecution will serve the public
interest. The court must also consider whether the grant of consent may thwart or stifle the course
of law or result in manifest injustice. In this case, the court found that the application and order
under Section 321 did not meet these requirements and were bad in law. Impact

The case highlighted the importance of following due process and considering all relevant material
before seeking the court's consent to withdraw charges. It also underscored the need to avoid
yielding to demands of criminals and to uphold the rule of law.