JUDGMENT (Per B. Prakash Rao, J.)

Since all these matters involve a common questions of law, they are being taken up together for disposal, though each varies on facts.

2. In W.A.1215 of 2008 and WA (SR) 109236 of2008 the State of A.P is the appellant, filed as against the interim orders of suspending the impugned proceedings by the learned Single Judge in W.P.M.P. No.25088 and 25089 of2008inW.P.192310f2008.

3. When these appeals came upforhearing, at the request and consent of the counsel on either side, the main writ petition in W. P .19231 of 2008 itself was taken up for final disposal.

4.lnW.P.19231of2008thepetitionersare the Margadarshi Financers and Sri Ramoji Rao, who sought for Writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned proceedings in G.O.Rt.No.315 Law (LA & J. Home-'A2') Department dated 19-02-2007 issued by the State Government purportedly in exercise of powers under sub-section (8) of Section 24 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 appointing the respondent NO.2 as a Special Public Prosecutor under Section 45 T (1) of the Reserve Bank of lndia Act, 1934forthepurpose of filing of applications and complaints under Section 58 (E) of the said Act and prosecute them, as arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and Section 24 of Code of Criminal Procedure and quash C.C.No.540of2008on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

5. The main thrust put forth on behalf of the petitioners in the writ petition was that the procedure as contemplated under sub clauses (4) and (5) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not followed, while appointing the 2nd respondent as Special Public Prosecutor under Section 24 (8) of the Code. In support reliance was placed on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Paramjit Singh Sadana v. State of A.P.1. Further it was contended that the respondent being a designated Senior Advocate, it is not permissible to appoint him as a Special Public Prosecutor in view of the bar under the Rules applicable to Senior Advocates, and therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated and liable to be set aside.

6. After hearing the learned Advocate General who sought to rely on the decisions reported in Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal @Subramaniam v. State of Tamil Nadu2 and that of Patna High Court in Shankar Sinha v. State ofBihaf3 the learned Single Judge initially granted interim orders suspending the impugned proceedings, pending disposal of the writ petition. Hence, the appeals.

7. During the course of hearing of these appeals, as stated above the main writ petition was taken up.

8. Learned Advocate General pointed out that as against the decision of the learned Single Judge in Paramjit Singh Sadana1 the State has preferred regular appeals in W.A.1254 of2008 and W A.266 of 1999-: Hence, at their request, these appeals also are taken up for disposal.

9. Sri C.Padbhanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submitted that the impugned proceedings appointing the respondent No.2 as a Special Public Prosecutor warrants applicability of the procedure as contemplated under sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and further sub-clause (8) of Section 24 as such, does not prescribe any guidelines except prescribing a requirement of standing at the Bar. Therefore, without following the procedure provided in the preceding clauses, no such appointment can be made. Whereas the present appointment being done without following such procedure, is not sustainable. That apart, it was contended that the respondent NO.2 is a designated senior advocate and therefore having regard to the terms, conditions and restrictions imposed under the Rules framed under The Advocates Act, 1961, no such appointment can be made to the post, and therefore, either way the appointment of respondent NO.2 is vitiated and liable to be set aside. Further, it was contended that there being no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document