U.D. Salvi, J.

1. These are group of writ petitions and the intervention applications therein moved to question the legality and propriety of the decisions taken by the State of Maharashtra in the matters of appointment of special Public Prosecutors under Section 24(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. The applicants in Criminal Application Nos.140 of 2010 and 178 of 2010 are seeking intervention in Criminal Writ Petition No.747 of 2010 on the ground that their interest in the appointment of Special Public Prosecutors in Criminal Case bearing MECR No.14 of 2002 arising out of complaint case No.279/PW of 2006 pending before the 33rd Metropolitan Magistrate, Ballard Pier, Mumbai are akin to those of the petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No.747 of 2010 Mr. Jayesh Doshi, the co-accused in the said criminal case.

3. Admittedly, the intervenors are the co-accused in the said criminal case and, therefore, their intervention in the present proceedings is justifiable. Their pleas, therefore, on the basis of the record produced by them have to be heard. Intervenors are, therefore, heard along with the parties to the petitions.

4. Rule. Taken up for final hearing by mutual consent.

5. Initially, accused No.1 – Jayesh Doshi in the said case had moved a petition only against the State and its Secretary. Later on, the complainant Nimesh Shah and his Advocates Mr. Vivek Sharma and Smt. Charmaine Bokaroo were impleaded to the petition vide order dated 29th April 2010, and they have been duly served in the present petition.

6. The respondent No.3 – Nimesh shah accused the petitioner Jayesh Doshi of cheating him in the transaction of sale of shares by delivering to him forged share certificates with resultant wrongful loss of Rs.8,32,311/-, and accused the intervenors of instigating and abetting the said crime. The police investigation made pursuant to the directions of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate of Borivali Court under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the Complaint Case No.26/I&R of 2002 lodged in that regard revealed the commission of offence outside the jurisdiction and as such the complainant was directed to present the complaint before the appropriate Court. A second complaint in that regard was, therefore, lodged in the 33rd Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Ballard Pier which was initially numbered as C.C. No.743/M of 2002. Investigations ordered under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 resulted in registration of the crime being M.E.C.R. No.14 of 2002 with M.R.A. Marg Police Station and the case following lodging of the chargesheet came to be numbered as 279/PW/2006.

7. According to the petitioner, the complainant Nimesh Shah in M.E.C.R. No.14 of 2002 continued to be represented by the respondent Nos.4 & 5, who actively participated in the trial of the same. The petitioner further states that respondent Nos.4 & 5 who represent the complainant as well as actively participated on their behalf in the said trial, came to be appointed as Special Public Prosecutors in the said case – C.C. no.279/PW of 2006 vide Notification No. SPP-3909/1696 (297) DX-IV issued by the respondent No.2 Secretary of the Judicial Department of the respondent No.1-State. After having learnt about the said Notification, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent No.2 for inviting its attention to the fact that the appointment of Special Public Prosecutor vide Notification No. SPP-3909/1696 (297) DX-IV could not have been made, especially when both the Advocates were representing the complainant and actively participating in the said trial on behalf of the complainant as well. This representation, the petitioner suggests has not been responded to.

8. The objections to the appointment of respondent Nos.4 & 5 as Special Prosecutors are:-

(i) Nothing has been shown to say that the public prosecutors in-charge of the case is incompetent to conduct the trial or suffers from su