The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the appointment of the Director General of Public Prosecutions and the duties of the Public Prosecutor in ensuring a fair trial.

Petitioner seeks to quash the appointment of third respondent as Director General of Public Prosecutions. A writ of 'mandamus' to appoint another Special Prosecutor in the place of third respondent to conduct S.C.10/91 on the file of the Court of Session, Manjeri is also sought. By an amendment to the writ petition, a writ of quo warranto is sought to call upon third respondent to show his title to hold the office of the Director General of Public Prosecutions, D.G.P.P. for short.

2. Petitioner is the accused in S.C.10/91 on the file of the Court of Session, Manjeri Division. Petitioner stands trial for offences under Ss.302, 450 & 376 read with S.511 IPC, in that he is alleged to have trespassed into the house of deceased Sujatha, attempted to commit rape on her and caused her death during the course of the same transaction at or about 5 p.m. on 2-9-1985, The case was investigated by the State Police and later by the Central Bureau of Investigation, pursuant to the direction issued by this court in O.P.10677/87. Third respondent was appointed Special Prosecutor, to conduct the prosecution. While functioning as Special Prosecutor, third respondent was appointed Public Prosecutor in the High Court, by Ext.P2 order dated 16-10-1991. By Ext.P3 dated 25-10-1991, the Public Prosecutor was re-designated as Director General of Public Prosecutions. Petitioner has not produced the order appointing third respondent as Special Prosecutor, nor has he stated by whom the appointment was made. Presumably, the appointment was made by the Union of India, a respondent to the writ petition. At the instance of petitioner, Union of India was removed from the array of parties by orders on CMP 20510/91. To whom a direction is sought to remove third respondent and appoint another in his place, is not known.

3. Petitioner submits that third respondents is ineligible to hold the office of Public Prosecutor in the High Court, as he has crossed the age of sixty prescribed under rule 14 of the Government Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of service) and Conduct of Cases Rules, 1978, called the 'Rules' hereinafter. Rule 14 was amended by Ext.P4, omitting the restriction regarding age in the case of the Public Prosecutor. The amendment is challenged on the ground that there was no consultation with fifth respondent, Public Service Commission. According to petitioner, consultation is mandatory, by reason of Article 320 of the Constitution. Even, consultation with the High Court under S.24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is defective -- submits petitioner. Provisions of the Kerala Public Service Act, 1968, called 'the Act' hereinafter, also have been violated according to petitioner. He has yet another contention that a fair trial will be denied to him. The Special Prosecutor being the D.G.P.P. also, police witnesses will depose against him, apprehends petitioner.

4. Elaborating the contentions, counsel for petitioner submitted that third respondent is disqualified by reason of m's age. Rule 14 states that a person who has attained the age of sixty, will not be eligible for appointment as Public Prosecutor. Third respondent is past 60, Faced with the amendment to the rule - Ext.P4, counsel submitted that the amendment is bad, for absence of consultation with Public Service Commission. The argument that third respondent is ineligible for appointment by reason of age cannot be accepted because, age restriction in rule 14 has been removed by Ext.P4. The amendment was made on 15-10-1991 (Ext.P4) and the appointment was made only on 16-10-1991 (Exi.P2). Qualifications are prescribed by rule 5. Rule 14 is only in the nature of prohibition, though both rules are captioned "Qualifications". Meanings unintended cannot be imported, by reason of imprecise language. Counsel of Sir Fitz James Stephen may be recounted:

"In drafting it is not enough to gain a degree of precision, which a person reading in good faith can understand, but it is necessary to a