( 1 ) THE petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by Ajay Kumar, raises the ques- tion as to the validity and propriety of appointment of an Advocate of an aggreived party as a Special Public Prosecutor in a Criminal trial. The following facts provide the backdrop.

( 2 ) AJAY Kumar, petitioner and certain other persons are facing trial in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge on charges, inter alia, of murder of Mukesh on October 6, 1982 in the Palika Bazar Market. The aggrieved party who are said to be "rich, well-connected and influential", had engaged Bawa Gurcharan Singh, an eminent criminal lawyer, as their counsel to oppose the plea of the accused persons for bail as also to assist the prosecution in the conduct of the eventual trial. By a notification of May 5, 1983, Delhi Administration appointed Bawa Gurcharan Singh aforesaid as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the case on behalf of. Delhi Administration at a professional "fee of Re. II- only as accepted by him, in his letter of April 18, 1983". One of the accused Sudhir Kumar was discharged by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. The Administration challenged the order in this Court under Section 397 of the Code in criminal revision no. 145/83. This petition was filed on behalf of the Administration by the aforesaid Advocate. The impugned order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge discharging Sudhir Kumar was set aside by this Court. While hearing the aforesaid petition, which was rather hotly contested, I got the impression that the. learned Counsel appearing for the Administration was not always able to keep his dual capacity as Special Public Prosecutor and a retained Counsel of the aggrieved party distinct. I also expressed my doubt as to the propriety of appointing a partisan Counsel as Special Public Prosecutor in a criminal trial. This is wht I said :

"4. The conduct of proceedings on behalf of the prosecution in. the court below and in this Court did not have their routine course. Special Public Prose- cutor was appointed on behalf of the secution, who appeared for it at the stage of consideration of charge, as indeed, in the proceedings before this Court. The Special Public Prosector was none other than the senior counsel retained by the aggrieved party. He bad apparently been appointed by the Administration at the request of the aggrieved party presumably because the conduct of investigation had been criticised by them on the ground that undue pressure had been brought on the investigating agency on behalf of Sudhir Kumar, which also explains why the investigation was transferred around the 9th of December, 1982. The appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor to conduct a trial or other proceedings is, at times, and may be resorted to and there are cases presenting legal problems of unusual complexity of which otherwise involve influential or controvertial personalities or which may tend to generate public controversy, and would eminently justify such a departure without necessarily rejecting on the calibre, competence or integrity ot the ordinary prosecuting staff, but such a course in ordinary cases may cause an unnecessary reflection on the efficiency, competence and even integrity of such staff, and may even have a demoralising influence. In any event, it would be a salutary principle not to appoint a nominee of one of the groups of factions as a Special Prosecutor in hotly contested proceedings. A certain amount of objectivity and detachment is expected of a public prosecutor, which is perhaps an extension (it the principle that State action in all situations must be "just and fair", unaffected by partisan considerations and free from the possible taint of revenge or vendetta and guided solely by larger public interest. Counsel, who holds the brief of one of the groups or factions, unfortunately may not always be able to keep his conflicting identities and loyalties apart or insulate his actions and conduct