The appointment of multiple Special Public Prosecutors for a particular case is not unconstitutional or impermissible under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and does not violate the accused's fundamental right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

1. Rule Public Prosecutor takes notice. Heard immediately with consent of the parties.

2. The writ petition herein involves an unusual but interesting question of law. The petitioner questions the decision on the part of the Government to appoint more than one Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the trial against the petitioner.

3. Following facts would highlight the controversy:

The petitioner was a Minister for Rural Industries of Government of Tamil Nadu in the cabinet headed by Selvi. J. Jayalalitha. He has presently been prosecuted for various offences including the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. These prosecutions are pending before the Special Courts. The petitioner is concerned with the case covered by CB CID/Hq Crime No. 17 of 96 and that one Thiru. G. Krishnamurthy, the 5th respondent herein, was appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor by G.O.Ms.No. 118, Public (Special A) Department, dated 21. 1997. He further points out that the Government, by G.O.Ms.No. 430, Public (Special A) Department, dated 14. 1997, has further appointed as many as eight Senior Advocates as Special Public Prosecutors to conduct the cases before the Courts and in this G.O., the earlier G.O.Ms.No. 118, dated 21. 1997 is also referred to so as to mean that the Special Public Prosecutors appointed would also be the Special Public Prosecutors for the cases covered under that G.O.Ms.No. 118 which includes the case against the petitioner. It is further pointed out that the Government has further passed G.O.Ms.No. 1493, Public (Special A) Department, dated 211. 1997 and in that G.O., the Government has appointed one Thiru. P. Venkatasubramaniam as a Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the prosecution of the trial case in CB CID Cr.No. 17 of 1996. Thus, the Government has appointed more than one Special Public Prosecutor in C.B. CID Cr.No. 17 of 1996 with which he is concerned. The above mentioned Government Orders are challenged in the present writ petition as constitutionally invalid as also impermissible under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. The question that falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether more than one Public Prosecutor could be appointed to conduct the prosecution on behalf of the state and further whether on the backdrop of the present facts and circumstances, such appointment could be termed as an arbitrary exercise of powers and as such impinging upon the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

5. Mr.N. Jothi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, in his usual persuasive manner, has taken me through the various relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and has tried to canvass that under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code itself, such appointment of more than one Special Public Prosecutor would be impermissible.

6. Section 2(u) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides the definition of a “Public Prosecutor” which means any person appointed under Section 24 and includes any person acting under the direction of a Public Prosecutor. Section 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code deals with the subject of “Public Prosecutors”. Sub-section (1) thereof provides that for every High Court, the Central Government or the State Government, after consultation with the High Court, shall appoint a Public Prosecutor and may appoint on e or more Additional Public Prosecutors, for conducting the matters of the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be. Sub-section (2) provides that the Central Government may appoint one or more Public Prosecutors for conducting any case or class of cases in any district or local areas. Sub- section (3) provides, for every district, the State Government shall appoint a Public Prosecutor and may appoint one or more Additional Public Prosecutor for conducting the district. These three sub- sections, therefore, pose no problem. While sub-section (1) deals with