A. H. JOSHI, J.

Heard.

2. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.

3. The petitioner had filed a case in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class for direction to register the offence. The direction under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was issued. Based thereon Crime No. 4 of 2007 for offence punishable under sections 120, 405, 406, 468, 469, 201, 474 read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Kadim Jalna Police Station was registered.

4. The text of first information report runs at considerable length. Substance of the first information report is narrated in the body of present writ petition in para no. 2 which reads as follows :-

"2. The accused no. 1 is husband of sister of complainant Petitioner no. 1 was resident of Nashik and therefore, he entered into sale transaction. The transaction was entered in order to assist sister and her husband. The complainant has given money for the said transaction, however, in connivance with each other, accused deceived complainant and sale deed was executed in the name of accused no. 1, instead of complainant......"

(quoted from paper-book page No. 3)

Thus according to the petitioner the accused persons have committed acts of cheating and breach of trust, etc. apart from other offences.

5. The investigation was completed and charge-sheet has been filed, which is registered as R.C.C. No. 677 of 2007.

6. Thereafter, on 12.4.2012 petitioner filed application to the Principal Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department, Maharashtra State, Mumbai. By this application he has prayed for appointment of a Special Prosecutor. Copy of the said application is at Exh. B of the petition which is at page 21 and 22 of the paper-book.

7. It is seen that thereafter the Government has requisitioned from the petitioner a letter of consent of the Lawyer, the information about justification for appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor and other details.

8. In answer to the requisition from the Government the petitioner sent another letter dated 18.6.2012 pursuing the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor. By impugned order petitioner's request for appointment of Special Public Prosecutor is rejected.

9. By this writ petition petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Government refusing to accede to petitioner's request for appointment of a Special Prosecutor to conduct the case originated from the complaint submitted by the petitioner.

10. Application annexure Exhibit "B" (page 21) is the foundation on which the said request was to be considered by the Government.

11. Application Exh. B (page 21) contains averments which are the foundation for prayer for appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor. The relevant text reads as follows:-

(quoted from paper-book page nos. 21 & 22)

12. In the follow up letter dated 18.6.2012 submitted by the petitioner he has made submission in paragraph 5 thereof, which reads as follows :-

HINDI

(quoted from paper-book page No. 27)

13. We have heard oral submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner and for the State.

14. Learned Advocate Mr. Katneshwarkar has vehemently argued the case. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has exerted to pursue us. It is urged that the offence subject-matter is of the category of "economic offence", and it is a complicated case as it involves high technicalities and, therefore, appointment of a Special Prosecutor is necessary.

15. It is argued that though the order annexure "G" (page 32) is the Government decision, it does not disclose application of mind by officer having experience in legal and judicial matters.

16. Petitioner's argument is that as the letter is signed by the Desk Officer, it is meant that it is his decision.

17. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court delivered in the case of Mukul Dalal vs. Union of India & ors., reported in 1988 (3) SCC 144. The judgment is relied on to urge that the order for permission to appoint a