As per case facts, Respondent No.1, Ex-Chief Minister, was accused of misappropriating funds collected for advertisements for party souvenirs. Charges were framed under ss.406, 467, 471, and 120 of the ... IPC. After a change in government, a policy decision was made to withdraw cases against political leaders. The Special Public Prosecutor, believing the charge of criminal breach of trust would fail, sought the court's permission to withdraw the case in public interest. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate granted consent, which was upheld by the High Court. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court. The question arose whether withdrawal from prosecution was legal after charges were framed, especially when based on grounds of insufficient evidence, and what criteria should guide such withdrawals under Section 321 Cr.P.C. Finally, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. While two judges (Oza, J. and Bhagwati, C.J.I.) found the charge of criminal breach of trust groundless and quashed it under Section 239 Cr.P.C. (instead of permitting withdrawal under Section 321), the majority upheld the Magistrate's decision. It was clarified that consent for withdrawal can be given under Section 321 Cr.P.C. at any time before judgment, even after charges are framed. The Court found that the Public Prosecutor had applied their mind properly, and the Magistrate judiciously granted consent, satisfying the tests laid down in previous precedents, without improper motives or interference with the normal course of justice.