L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner figured as an accused in Crime No. 498 of 1998 of machavaram Law and Order Police Station, vijayawada. He is accused of having committed offence under Section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The 3rd respondent lodged a complaint stating that the petitioner murdered his brother by name p. Ramakrishna.

( 2 ) THE 3rd respondent submitted a representation to the 1st respondent, the government of Andhra Pradesh, requesting them to appoint the 2nd respondent herein as Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the case in Cr. No. 498 of 1998. Acceding to the request of the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent issued G. O. Ms. No. 217, Law department, dated 10-10-1998, appointing the 2nd respondent as Public Prosecutor, in exercise of power under Section 24 (8} of cr. P. C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code for short ). The said order is challenged in this writ petition.

( 3 ) THE petitioner contends that the 2nd respondent appeared in several cases for the deceased P. Ramakrishna. According to him, it is the 2nd respondent s acquaintance with and proximity to the deceased and his family, that promted the 3rd respondent to make a request to the 1st respondent to appoint the 2nd respondent as Special Public Prosecutor. The petitioner expressed apprehension about the independent functioning of the 2nd respondent as Special Public Prosecutor. Legal aspects of the matter are also canvassed.

( 4 ) IN the counter affidavit field by the 1st respondent, it is stated that the Government has inherent right to appoint special Public Prosecutor under Section 24 (8} of the Code, and that no exception can be taken to the appointment of the 2nd respondent. It is alleged that the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is without basis. They reiterate that the Public Prosecutor is not expected to take sides and that he is the Minister of Justice, as far as the case is entrusted to him or concerned.

( 5 ) SRI C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, submits that the office of Public Prosecutor is of special significance. According to him, the Public Prosecutor is not supposed to act in a partisan manner, with an endeavour to procure conviction. The learned counsel submits that such being the sacred duties of a Public Prosecutor, appointment of an advocate as a Public Prosecutor, at the instance of a complainant, that too, of an advocate who appeared for the deceased and acquainted with his family, cannot be sustained. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in D. Brahmanandam v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1986) 1 Andh lt 141 and of Supreme Court in Mukulk dalai v. U. O. I. , (1988) 3 SCC 144.

( 6 ) LEARNED Government Pleader for home, on the other hand, submits that the appointment of the 2nd respondent was strictly in accordance with the provisions of section 2 (8) of the Code and no exception can be taken to the impugned order. He submits that though the 3rd respondent had made a specific request for appointing the 2nd respondent as Special Public Prosecutor, the Government had examined the matter dispassionately and it was only having regard to the standing and exprience of the 2nd respondent, that he was appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor. To sustain the impugned order, he has placed reliance up on two recent judgments rendered by this court in Tummuri Veerashekara Rao v. State of A. P. , W. P. No. 8004 of 2002 dated 23-9- 2002 and G. Daniel v. Government of A. P. . W. P. No. 13637 of 2003, dated 29-7-2003.

( 7 ) THROUGH the impugned order in G. O. Ms. No. 217 dated 10-10-1998, the 1st respondent appointed the 2nd respondent as a Special Public Prosecutor. The relevant portion of the order is very brief and it is beneficial to extract the same. It reads as under:"in view of the representation of Sri P. Sai babu, Managing Director, Siti Cable Network (P) Ltd. Vijayawada, in the reference read above,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document