New Delhi, December 18
The Supreme Court today said the state governments had no power to withdraw POTA cases against an accused without the consent of the Centre, giving a major jolt to the Uttar Pradesh Government’s efforts to withdraw the cases under the Act against controversial Independent MLA Raghuraj Pratap Singh, alias Raja Bhaiya.
A three-Judge Bench, comprising Mr Justice S Rajendra Babu, Mr Justice A.R. Lakshmanan and Mr Justice G P Mathur told the counsel for UP and Raja Bhaiya that as per the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), a case registered against a person under Central law like POTA, could not be withdrawn from the court without the express consent of the Union Government.
This was observed by the apex court during the hearing of a petition challenging the decision of the Mulayam Singh Yadav government to withdraw POTA cases against Raja Bhaiya, his father Udai Pratap Singh and his cousin Akshay Pratap Singh, registered by the previous Mayawati government for their alleged involvement in various crimes, including murders.
This was the first decision of the Mulayam Singh government after assuming office on August 29, the court was informed.
“The state government has no business here (to withdraw the case). The court has held only on Tuesday that POTA is in the Union list,” the Bench said.
Former Delhi High Court Judge K. Ramamurthy, appearing as counsel for petitioner S K Shukla, who was examined as a witness in the case against Raja Bhaiya and his father, contended that unless a public prosecutor, appointed by the Centre made such a request for
withdrawal of the case from the court or the Centre had given sanction for it, it was immaterial what decision the state government had taken.
UP had made an amendment in the CrPC’s Section 321, giving power to the state to withdraw criminal cases against a person and the state government had moved an application for withdrawal of POTA cases against Raja Bhaiya, his father and cousin, lodged in jail since May this year under the same provision.
The court kept the petition pending and told the counsel for the UP Government that it would be listed for hearing only if an order from the Centre was produced.
