Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : M.JAGANADHA RAO
Dodda Brahmanandam - Appellant
Versus
State of A P rep by its Secretary for Law Department, Hyderabad - Respondent
W.P.No. 6823/83
Decided On : 11-20-85
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. M. Chandrasekhara Rao, Mr. B.V. Subbaiah
Held : The accused can raise a reasonable apprehension of bias against a particular person appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor under Sec 24 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
The prosecuting counsel stands on a position different from that of an Advocate who represents the complainant He does not represent either the defacto complaint or the Police He is a representative of the State and is part of that in and in that sense called a Minister of justice His function is to assist the Court in arriving at the truth It is not his duty to obtain a conviction at any cost but simply to lay before the Court the whole of the facts of the case and the law The State has no interest in procuring a conviction It s only interest is that the guilty must be punished and justice should be done It is regarded as proper, for the prosecution to acquaint the defence as to and relevant information so that the defence may have the opportunity to use it if they to desire and so that unfairness is meted out to the accused The position of the prosecutor is quasi judicial and one of trust
WP Allowed
Key Points: - The duties and role of a Public Prosecutor as a minister of justice, and its quasi-judicial position (!) (!) . - Whether an accused has locus standi to object to the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor under Section 24(8), CrPC on grounds of reasonable apprehension of bias (!) (!) (!) . - The propriety and legality of the Government’s appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor in this case, and the impact on fair trial and impartiality (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The principle that justice must be seen to be done and the consequences for appointments that may create bias (!) (!) . - The Court’s ultimate relief: allowing the writ petition and recommending a non-local SPS to avoid further complications (!) .
( 1 ) THIS writ petition raises the question as to the duties of a public prosecutor and also a question as to the locus standi of an accused to object to the appointment of a particular person as special Public Prosecutor under Section 24 (8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, on the ground of reasonable apprehension of bias on the lattor s part.
( 2 ) THE petitioner, Dodda brahmanandam, is the accused standing trial in Sessions Case No. 92/1983 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge addanki, Prakasham District. He is questioning the appointment of the 2nd respondent herein, Sri M Ramaiah choudary, Advocate, Chirala as a Special public Prosecutor, under section 24 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to conduct prosecution in P R C No. 2/82 pending before the Munsif Magistrate, addanki, Prakasham District. The defacto complainant who is the petitioner s wife is now impleadedas the 3rd respondent in the writ petition.
( 3 ) IT is necessary to state the following facts: The petitioner and the 3rd respondent were married on 17-5-1973 On 25-11-1981 the 3rd respondent s father gave a report alleging that his son in-law (the writ petitioner) and the writ petitioner s mother beat his daughter (3rd respondent) and tried to kill her (3rd respondent) on 22-11-1981 the local police filed a charge sheet in crime No. 84/81. The matter was taken up as P R C No 2/82 by the Munsif magistrate, Addanki- It is the petitioner s case that as that stage the 2nd respondent Sri M. Ramaiah Choudary, advocate of Chirala attempted to get himself appointed as Special Public prosecutor and that on 13-11-1981 the 3rd respondent submitted a representation to the Government to appoint the 2nd respondent as Special Public Prosecutor on the plea that the Assistant public Prosecutor was not favourably inclined towards her. There upon, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Director General of Police, Hyderabad on 10-12-81 sitting that the complainant viz, his father-in-law, is a very powerful man in the village of Yenamadala, that Sri M Ramaiah Choudary, advocate (2nd respondent) who Is also from the village is a close friend of the petitioner s father-in-law, that with the assistance of the said advocate the 3rd respondent was taken to Chirala Hosppitat instead of Chilakaluripeta hospital which is nearer that a certificate was obtained regarding some alleged injury on the neck of the 3rd respondent, and that lot of publicity was given in the local news papers about the alleged incident dated 22-11-1981. He also further stated that his father-in-law gave a false report three days after the alleged incident to the police only with a view to humiliate the petitioner and his family. He also referred to certain disputes in the panchayat elections, which, according to him, were the cause for the complaint.
( 4 ) THE Collector and District magistrate, Ongole, passed an order on 15-10-1982 appointing the Additional public Prosecutor of Ongole. one b Hanuma Reddy, as a Special Public prosecutor to conduct the prosecution in p R C No. 2/82. It is the petitioner s case that the 2nd respondent and the 3rd respondent then attempted to have the appointment of the said B Hanuma reddy cancelled. There is a representation by the petitioner to the District magistrate and Collector that the 2nd respondent prevailed on the Inspector of police, Addanki and got a charge sheet filed in P R C No. 2/82 even before the investigation was completed by the crime Branch. According to him, the crime Branch had dropped the investigation. The petitioner further stated that the 2nd respondent who is an advocate at Chirala was collecting huge amounts from the complainant s party promising them that he would be appointed as special Public Prosecutor to conduct the case and that he will go to any extent to get the petitioner and other accused convicted. The petitioner also alleged that the entire case was foisted against him at the instance of the 2nd respond
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
