Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 1115
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
B. VEERAPPA, J.
P.L.G. Manu - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 43675 of 2013
Decided On : 08-07-2019
B.K. Sampath Kumar, Adv., Y.D. Harsha, Adv., Santhosh S. Gogi, Adv., C.V. Nagesh, Adv., Vijaykumar Desai, Adv.
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 14 and 21 - Criminal procedure Code,1973 - Section 24(8) - Rule 30 Karnataka Legal Officers Rules, 1977 - Punishment – FIR - Special Public Prosecutor by 1st respondent State Government without there being any special circumstances requiring such an appointment nor does public interest demand such an appointment- It is further contended that complainant is further attempting to get another counsel appointed as an Assistant to prosecution and has filed an application for same -It is contended that Public Prosecutor has already been appointed by State Government who is perfectly capable of conducting trial in said matter and there is no need of any such assistance entire case elucidated squarely establish mala-fide acts of complainant –Held, Prosecutor and requirements of fair trial do not vary from case to case- Besides there is always Court to safeguard interests of accused and complainant to control proceedings and to check omissions and commissions of Prosecutor- court is not a silent spectator to proceedings but an active participant in it- Hence it cannot be argued that where Special Public Prosecutors are appointed whether paid by State or private party prosecution and trial must be presumed to be biased partial or unfair- Therefore contention learned counsel for petitioner that no public interest is involved and no reasons are assigned are devoid of merits in view of provisions Criminal Procedure are not assailable on ground of arbitrariness Court of Magistrates State is empowered to appoint in addition Assistant Public Prosecutors- It is well settled that Criminal prosecutions are launched not only by State but also by private parties role of Prosecutor in any criminal trial whether at instance of State or private party is to safeguard interests of both complainant and accused right to be heard includes right to be represented by an able spokesman confidence- This right belongs both to accused and complainant- It is not only accused who is in need of assistance and protection of his rights but also complainant- Prosecutor has therefore to discharge his duties diligently towards that effect- In discharge of his duties as a Prosecutor he is ordained by law by professional ethics and by his role as an officer of Court to employ only such means as are fair and legitimate and to desist from resorting to unjust and wrongful means- This is so whether prosecution is private or State Court as stated supra point raised in present writ petition is answered in affirmative holding that State Government is justified in issuing impugned notification in exercise of powers provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure Karnataka Legal Officers (Appointment and Service Conditions) appointing respondent as Public Prosecutor to conduct CC No-before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court Bangalore on behalf of State Government in and circumstances of case- Petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with impugned order passed by State Government in exercise of power - Order accordingly
JUDGMENT :
B. Veerappa, J.
1. The petitioner who is the accused in CC No.13613/2009, filed the present writ petition to quash the impugned notification dated 27.8.2013 as per Annexure-A, appointing the 2nd respondent as the Special Public Prosecutor under the Provisions of Section 24(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to conduct the above criminal case on behalf of the State Government.
I. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the 1st Accused in C.C. No.13613/2009 pending on the file of the IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, on the basis of a false complaint by one R. Jayavelu and the entire case is based on false premises and the averments relied on therein are totally absurd and inconsistent. The complainant in the said matter has resorted to various acts of high handedness and this writ petition is meant to challenge the latest such atrocity suffered by the petitioner at the hands of the complainant, wherein the 2nd respondent has been appointed as the Special Public Prosecutor by the 1st respondent State Government without there being any special circumstances requiring such an appointment nor does public interest demand such an appointment. It is further contended that the complainant is further attempting to get another counsel appointed as an Assistant to the prosecution and has filed an application for the same on 7.8.2013. It is further contended that the Public Prosecutor has already been appointed by the State Government, who is perfectly capable of conducting the trial in the said matter and there is no need of any such assistance. The entire facts of the case elucidated squarely establish the mala-fide acts of the complainant.
3. It is further contended that the petitioner joined the Indian Navy and served the Nation for a period of 13 years and when resigned, he was Lt. Commander and after resigning from the Indian Navy, he got into business with his nephew Joseph Tharakan and it is thus M/s Shashi Distilleries, a registered partnership firm was formed in the year 1990 at Goa with the petitioner and his nephew Joseph Tharakan, as its partners, with the object of manufacturing and selling Indian made foreign liquor and they are carrying on its business from Bangalore from the year 1992.
4. It is further case of the petitioner that one N. Ganesan, an acquaintance of the petitioner, was roped into the said business by the petitioner, to look after the business in Bangalore as the petitioner was busy in the full time management of his business in Goa. In turn, the said N. Ganesan entrusted the business to his cousin R. Jayavelu, as he had to leave to Pondicherry to tend to his own business. The said R. Jayavelu is the complainant and N. Ganesan is the 3rd accused in C.C. No.13613/2009. It is further contended that there were business transactions between the petitioner, Ganesan and the complainant Jayavelu. During the course of such business transactions, the petitioner realized that the perverse acts of the complainant had not stopped at the forgery of the partnership deed, but the complainant in addition, forged a deed of reconstitution in the year 1997 and on the basis of deed of reconstitution, the complainant and N. Ganesan, the 3rd accused, were inducted into the firm as partners, with a share percentage of 55% to the complainant, 35% to N. Ganesan and 5% each to the petitioner and Joseph Tharakan. The whole transfer of partnership share had taken place without any consideration being paid to the petitioner and Joseph Tharakan, although a license in Karnataka is worth crores.
5. It is further contended that in order to capitalize on the said business of liquor, which has been systematically taken over by the use of forged documents, the complainant in the year 1997 pursuant to the forged deed of reconstitution as per Annexure-F, sent forged letters alleged to have been signed by Joseph Tharakan and the petitioner to the Excise Department, Government of Karnataka, fals
