1. By this writ application under Article-226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-original accused of the offence of murder seeks to challenge the order dated 29th January, 2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Junagadh below Exh.7 in Sessions Case No.61/2012 as well as the resolution/order dated 2nd July, 2012 passed by the respondent no.2 State Government appointing Shri D.R. Karkar as the Special Public Prosecutor in the Sessions Case No.61/2012.

2. The facts giving rise to this writ application may be summarized as under :-

2.1 On 16th May, 2012, a First Information Report was lodged by one Dhirubhai Sarmanbhai Sutreja against the petitioner herein and one other person of the offence of murder punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The First Information Report was lodged on the very same date of the incident i.e. 16th May, 2012. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner herein along with a co-accused intercepted the brother of the first informant, namely, Sarmanbhai (deceased) with the intention to commit his murder. When the deceased tried to make good his escape, the accused persons ran after him and inflicted injuries on the body of the deceased with knives within the precincts of an Orthopedic Hospital of one Dr. Lakhani.

2.2 The accused persons were arrested. On conclusion of the investigation charge-sheet was filed of the offence of murder. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the same was registered as Sessions Case No.61/2012. The sessions case is pending for trial. It appears that the original first informant i.e. the brother of the deceased appeared through his advocate Shri Dipendra Desai. The learned Trial Judge granted permission to the first informant to engage his advocate in support of the case of the prosecution. In short the Trial Judge seems to have permitted the advocate of the first informant to watch the proceedings and assist the Public Prosecutor.

2.3 It also appears that thereafter the brother of the deceased requested the State Government that having regard to the serious nature of the offence a Special Public Prosecutor be appointed to conduct the sessions trial. The State Government seems to have accepted the request of the brother of the deceased and vide order dated 2nd July, 2012 appointed Mr.Dahyabhai R. Karkar as a Special Public Prosecutor in exercise of powers under sub-Sec. 8 of Sec. 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973.

2.4 The petitioner herein being aggrieved by such appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor filed an application Exh.7 praying to quash and set aside the order passed by the State Government dated 2nd July,2012. The learned Sessions Judge, Junagadh vide order dated 29th January, 2014 rejected the application.

2.5 The petitioner, therefore, has come up with this application.

3. Submissions on behalf of the petitioner :

3.1 Mr. Hriday Buch, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the accused vehemently submitted that the State Government has passed a resolution dated 18/6/2012 laying down certain guidelines to be followed for the purpose of making appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor in the State of Gujarat. According to the said guidelines, no such appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor shall be made unless cogent reasons are recorded by the Legal Secretary and Remembrancer about his satisfaction as to the necessity of the appointment. Mr.Buch submits that no such reasons are found on plain reading of the impugned order.

3.2 Mr. Buch submits that the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor can be made only if public interest demands and not on just a request made by the complainant. He further submits that all crimes are serious as they are against the society at large. There is nothing special about the present Sessions Trial.

3.3 Mr.Buch submits that without any application of mind and valid justification the State Government has passed an order of an appointment of a Special Public Pro