The necessity of consulting the District Police Chief for appointing a Special Public Prosecutor under Section 24(8) of Cr.P.C prior to any decision.

JUDGMENT :

C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, J.

1. The de facto complainant in S.C.545/2024 pending before the Fast Tract Special Court-II, Thrissur, arising out of crime No.898/2022 of Viyyur police station filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to appoint Adv.Johnson T.Thomas as Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the prosecution in the above Sessions Case, as provided under Section 24 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure .

2. The offences involved in the above case are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 427, 380, 506(i), 294(b), 448, 354, 308, 201 r/w 149 IPC. The prosecution case is that due to the enmity of the accused persons 1 to 16 and two juveniles in conflict with law towards the de facto complainant, as this Court ordered further investigation in a case in which the scooter of the de facto complainant was set on fire, on 1.12.2022 at about 8.15 p.m they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons with the common object of attacking the de facto complainant, trespassed into her residence, pulled her out of the house, voluntarily caused hurt to her by hitting with stones and using their limbs, intimidated to do away with her, abused her using filthy words and outraged her modesty. It is also alleged that if the blow inflicted by the 1^st accused towards her forehead using a stone was not resisted by her using hands, the same would have even resulted in causing her death. There is a further allegation that in the incident the 2^nd accused snatched away a gold chain weighing 4 sovereigns worn by the de facto complainant and stole her mobile phone and money.

3. According to the petitioner, the accused persons are highly influential, both politically and financially and having least respect to the law. They are not bothered even to respect the protection order of this Court. She apprehends that the prosecution may not be sufficiently effective, particularly during the examination of witnesses. According to her, the case involves grave public interest as she was brutally attacked while the protection order passed by this Court was in force. Though she had given Ext.P3 request for appointing a Special Public Prosecutor, the same was declined as per Ext.P6 letter issued by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Kerala. It was in the above context that she preferred this Writ Petition for appointing a Special Public Prosecutor.

4. The petition was strongly opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that as per the Circular No.264/C4/2017/Home, dated 18.9.2017, certain guidelines were prescribed by the Government for appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor and according to him, the case involved in the instant case does not come within the purview of the above Circular and as such, he justified Ext.P6 rejecting the prayer for appointing a Special Public Prosecutor.

5. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the above Circular itself would argue that before taking a decision the Government has to consult the District Police Chief concerned, that in the instant case no such consultation was made and therefore, she prayed for setting aside Ext.P6 by allowing this Writ Petition.

6. Clause (b) and (c) of the above Circular reads as follows :

b) The following among other categories of cases, shall ordinarily be considered for the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor :-

i) Cases such as heinous murder or kidnapping or rape particularly of minor and which are gruesome in character shocking the collective conscience of the community at large.

ii) Ofences against property having wide ramifications such as money chain dealings, cheatin