Point of Law : When accused is entitled for an eminent advocate, the opportunity cannot be denied to the victim of the crime, therefore, the appointment of respondent No.4 by the Deputy Commissioner as special Counsel for respondent No.2, is in accordance with law. [Para 15]

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners accused Nos.1 to 4 being aggrieved with the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagaluru, dated 03.04.2021 whereby the Deputy Commissioner has appointed the 4th respondent-advocate as Special Prosecutor under Rule 4(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST Rules') to conduct the special case on behalf of respondent No.2 in Special C.C. No.75/2020 pending on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned SPP and HCGP for the respondent Nos.1 and 3 as well as respondent No.2. Respondent No.4 served and unrepresented.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are accused who are facing trial before the Special Court for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(g), 3(1)(p), 3(1)(2b), 3(1)(zc), 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST Act') and Section 506 of IPC on the complaint filed by respondent No.2 before the Jayapura police Station, Chikkamagaluru which is registered in Crime No.36/2019. Respondent No.2 approached the Deputy Commissioner of the district requesting to appoint respondent No.4-advocate as a Special Prosecutor to prosecute the matter. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 03.04.2021 appointed respondent No.4 as Special Public Prosecutor, which is under challenge in this writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the order of the Deputy Commissioner appointing respondent No.4 as Special Public Prosecutor on behalf of respondent No.2 is not correct. The State Government has already appointed the panel of advocates on behalf of the prosecution and the public prosecutor has already been appointed as per Rule 4(1) of SC/ST Rules. Such being the case, appointing respondent No.4, who is an advocate for respondent No.2 in civil case, is not correct. It is further contended that respondent No.4 is not a Senior Advocate as contemplated under Rule 4(5) of SC/ST Rules. The Government of India has to spend more amount for appointing the advocates. Hence, prayed for setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner. In support of his case, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the judgment of the High Court of Delhi.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has objected the petition contending that appointment of respondent No.4 is in accordance with law. There is no bar in appointing respondent No.4 as counsel for respondent No.2. It is further contended that merely respondent No.4 is an advocate for respondent No.2 in civil case, that itself, is not a ground for setting aside the impugned order. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.

6. Learned SPP also submits that there is no bar for appointing respondent No.4 as counsel for respondent No.2 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment has categorically held that there must be appointment of eminent advocate for contesting the matter and it cannot be a simple formality for appointing any counsel either to prosecute the matter or to defend the case. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.

7. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, perused the records.

8. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are the accused facing trial in Special C.C. No.75/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506, 334 of IPC and Section 3(1) of SC/ST Act. It is also an admitted fact that respondent No.2 is the defacto complainant, who has lodged the complaint against the petitioners. It is also an admitted fact that that respondent No.4 was an advocate of respondent No.2 in a civil matter and also that respondent No.4 said to be appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 in the bail matter when the notice was issued by the Court under Section