appeals filed by the co-accused before this Court were dismissed. Further, in Crl.R.C.No.1297 of 2009, the trial against the co-accused is still pending in S.C,No.74 of 2004 on the file of the Court below. Further, in the subject applications filed under Section 321 Cr.p.C., the Public Prosecutor had categorically stated that there is no conclusive evidence to prove the guilt of the petitioner/accused in both these criminal Revision cases and that the case suffers from paucity of evidence and that the confession of the co-accused is inadmissible in evidence. Further, the Government, after careful consideration of the matter, ordered the Public prosecutor to withdraw from prosecution against the petitioner/accused in both these criminal Revision cases, vide G.O.Rt.Nos.911 & 912, dated 18.05.2006. When the public Prosecutor, having considered every aspect, was of the opinion that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner/accused would be a Futile exercise and accordingly sought permission for withdrawal from prosecution, in view of the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the subject apprications were made with obrique motive or for extraneous considerations and not made in good faith and in the interest of public policy. Under these circumstances, this court is of the considered view that according permission to the public prosecutor for withdrawar from prosecution by the court berow wourd have been justified. All the circumstances cumurativery show that the court berow ought to have granted consent to the public prosecutor for withdrawal from prosecution. In the circumstances of the case, the court berow ought to have alowed the subject apprications, The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner/accused in both these Criminal Revision Cases do merit consideration.
