The personal opinion of the appointed prosecutor has no influence on the court's decision-making process, and the appointment of an advocate representing the complainant as a Special Public Prosecutor does not prejudice the fair trial.

SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J.

( 1 ) HEARD rival submissions.

( 2 ) THE appellant seeks to challenge the ordre dated March 5, 2003 of the learned single Judge, whereby the writ petition assailing the appointment of Shri Mani Ram sharma, Advocate as Special Public Prosecutpr to handle the criminal case, was dismissed.

( 3 ) BRIEF resume of the case is that Shri mani Ram Sharma, Advocate, who already represented the complainant, was appointed as Special Public Prosecutor by the State governmet u/s. 24 (8) of the Code of criminal Procedure in a Criminal case bearing FIR no. 15/2000 registered at Police Station sadar, Jhunjhunu u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 365, 302, IPC. Contention of learned counsel before the learned single Judge was that the State Government while appointing Shri mani Ram Sharma as Special P. P. did not apply its mind. Shri Mani Ram Sharma had already appeared on behalf of the complainant and in view of the fair trial, his appointment was bad in law. Learned single Judge did not agree with the submissions and dismissed the writ petition.

( 4 ) CALLING in question the afore-quoted orders learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on Madho Singh v. State of rajasthan (2002 Cri LJ 1694) and Varada rama Mohana Rao v. State of A. P. (2004 (4)SCC 427) : (2004 Cri LJ 2829 ).

( 5 ) IN Madho Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2002 Cri LJ 1694) (supra), learned single judge of this Court indicated in para 45 thus :-"there is nothing on record to show that any authority had applied its mind. It is also doubtful whether the order could have been passed by the Honble Minister on the same date when the application was moved, particularly in view of the fact that the application was made to the Law Secretary and not to the Honble Minister. Whether the order could have been passed by the Honble minister or by the Law Secretary, also remains unexplained. Even if the Honble Minister was competent to pass the order, the application should have reached to him through proper channel after being processed by the law Department. No comments/remarks have been called from any person nor any inquiry has been made on the grounds taken in the application. Thus, it is a clear case of non-application of mind by the Statutory authority. The said authority did not conr sider it proper to record any reason as what was the public, interest involved in passing such order and what were the special features of the case which, warranted appointment of Special Public Prosecutor. "

( 6 ) HAVING scanned the material on record, We notice that District Magistrate, jhunjhunu made a request to the State government vide letter dated Octaber 21, 2002 to appoint Special Public Prosecutor in the case. Penal of three advocates namely mani Ram Sharma, Beerbal Singh Gajraj and Ved Prakash Kunhari was sent. Beerbal singh Gajraj and Ved Prakash expressed their inability to conduct the case, therefore, the State Government appointed: Shri mani Ram Sharma u/s. 24 (8) of the Code of criminal Procedure as a Special Public Prosecutor.

( 7 ) SECTION 24 (8) of the Code of Criminal procedure provides as under :-"the Central Government or the State government may appoint, for the purposes of any case or class of cases, a person who has been in practice as an advocate for not less than ten years as a Special Public Prosecutor. "

( 8 ) UNDENIABLY Shri Mani Ram Sharma, advocate has practiced as a Advocate for more than 10 years and his appointment was made pursuant to the mandate of subsection (8) of Section 24. In our opinion the personal opinion of Mani Ram Sharma has no place in the decision making process of the Court as the manner he presents his case is always subject to judicial scrutiny of the trial Court. The appointment of Mani ram Sharma as Special P. P. would not cause any prejudice to the appellant or the decision making process of the trial Court.

( 9 ) THEIR Lordships of the Supreme Court in Varada Rama Mohana Rao v. State of A. P. (2004) Cri LJ 2829) (supra) pr