Back
2008 Supreme(AP) 93
2008 (1) ALD (Crl.) 712 (AP)
In the High Court of Judicature, A.P. at Hyd.
N.V. Ramana, J.
Paramjit Singh Sadana – Appellant.
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and others – Respondent
WP Nos. 21851 and 26699 of 2007
Decided On : 8-2-2008
K. Suresh Reddy, Counsel for the Petitioner in WP No.21851 of 2007;
Posani Venkateswarlu, Counsel for the Petitioner in WP No.26699 of 2007;
Government Pleader for Law and Legislative Affairs, Counsel for the Respondent No.1 in both the Cases;
Government Pleader for Home, Counsel for the Respondent No.2 in both the Cases;
C.B. Ram Mohan Reddy, Counsel for the Respondent No.5 in WP No.21851 of 2007.
Headnote:
Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 –Sections 24(8), 24, 25, 24(4), (5), – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 379 – Appointment of Public Prosecutor – What is the procedure that governs the appointment of Public Prosecutors/Additional Public Prosecutors/Special Public Prosecutors/Assistant Public Prosecutors, to the various Courts – Whether the accused in a criminal case have any locus standi to question the appointment of Special Public Prosecutor – What is the amount of discretion that is vested in the Government in the matter of appointment of Public Prosecutors/Additional Public Prosecutors/Special Public Prosecutors/ Assistant Public Prosecutors, to the various Courts – Whether respondent NO.1-Government was justified in appointing Special Public Prosecutor on the request made by the de facto complainant –Held, It has to be held that in the matter of making appointments to the posts of Public Prosecutors Additional Public Prosecutors/Special Public Prosecutors, as the case may be, the procedure as contemplated under Section 24 of the Code, particularly sub-sections (4) and (5) thereof has to be followed in its letter and spirit – It cannot be said that the petitioners, who are accused in the Sessions Case, have no locus standi to question the appointment of Special Public Prosecutor, and more so it is their specific case such appointment has been made at the instance of the de facto complainant, despite existence of the regular Public Prosecutor – Any appointment made by the Government of the Public Prosecutors/Additional Public Prosecutors/Special Public Prosecutors, as the case may be, in exercise of its discretion under Section 24 of the Code shall be by reading the said provision as a whole, and not a particular sub-section thereof in piecemeal – Court is of the considered opinion that it would not be proper to entrust the case to him, and direct respondent No.1Government to entrust this case to any other Public Prosecutor, who is working in the City Criminal Courts or to appoint any Special Public Prosecutor after following the procedure as contemplated in Section 24 of the Code, particularly sub-sections (4) and (5) thereof, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order – Writ Petitions Allowed
Brief facts of the Case
2. The facts that gave rise to the filing of these two writ petitions are - At the instance of one Smt. Reena Sadna (hereinafter called as the 'de facto complainant') a case in Crime No.369 of 2006 on the file of the Police Station, Punjagutta, under Sections 302 and 379 I.P.C. was registered. In the said complaint, the complainant alleged that her husband Sri Jasbir Singh was murdered on the intervening night of 27/28.4.2006, and she suspected her servants namely A2 to A5, who are Nepalies, to be the culprits. During the course of investigation, she gave a statement that she suspected that the brother of the deceased (petitioner in W.P. No.2185l of 2007) to be the main conspirator for the murder in view of existence of r property disputes between them.
3. While so, basing on the confessional statements, said to have been made by A1 and his Car Driver A6, the petitioner in W.P. No.26699 of 2007 was arrayed as accused No.7 in the Sessions Case on the ground that he facilitated A2 to A5 to flee h away from Hyderabad, and provided them with money on the instructions of A1. Later a A6 having been arrested and remanded in judicial custody. After completing the investigation, the police laid the charge-sheet in the month of October, 2006. Thereafter, the matter was committed to the Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad. While the case was pending, the de facto complainant made a representation to the Government for appointing a private Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor in the place of the existing Public Prosecutor to conduct trial in S.C. No.218 of 2007. Basing on the said representation, the Government issued the impugned G.O. appointing Sri. P. Satya Murthy, Advocate, as the Special Public Prosecutor.
Defence of the respondents
4. Respondent NO.1-Government represented by the Secretary to Government, Law (Legislative Affairs and Justice) Department, has filed a common counter affidavit in both the writ petitions stating that the appointment of Special Public Prosecutor was made strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 24(8) of the Code; that the murder of the husband of the de facto complainant caused great sensation in the city; while the investigation was in progress, the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, formed a special team to nab the accused, and they have arrested the accused, completed the investigation and filed the charge-sheet. It is stated that the entire case depends on circumstantial evidence and the police have cited about 90 witnesses to prove the case. There is also scientific and expert evidence to be considered at the time of trial, and the case also involves certain important questions of law to be decided, and therefore, prosecution has to be conducted by an eminent and experienced Counsel. Basing on the representation of the de facto complainant, the Government have examined the issue in the light of the remarks of the Director of Prosecutions, and appointed Special Public Prosecutor, to conduct prosecution in the case.
5. The de facto complainant has also filed a counter-affidavit along with a vacate stay petition inter alia stating that after the murder of her husband, she learnt from reliable sources that the brother of her husband, namely Al is the main culprit for the ghastly murder, and she intimated the same to the police, who after investigation, arrested him on 1.8.2006, and he was sub
