Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 116
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
N. KIRUBAKARAN, J.
M. Prakasam
Versus
Inspector of Police, Vathalai Police Station, Trichy District
Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 15945 of 2014 & M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2015
Decided On : 23-01-2015
Veerakathiravan, S. Palanivelayutham, Advocates, Balasubramaniam, Govt. Advocate.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Sections 294(b), 341, 307 – Criminal Procedure Code - Section 2(u) - Administration of justice – Appeal against conviction - Promotion of Assistant Public Prosecutors - It is case of prosecution that victim was attacked by accused and others and he was admitted in hospital where he died - Originally a case has been registered under Sections 294(b), 341, 307 of Indian Penal Code After investigation final report has been filed against petitioner and others under Sections 341, 302 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code – Originally case was filed on file of learned Judicial Magistrate and subsequently same was committed to Principal District and Sessions Court - There are four accused and the petitioner in the above Criminal Original Petition has been arrayed as A1. The Sessions case is sought to be transferred from Principal Sessions Court to District Court to some other District Court by petitioner accused stating that sons of defector complainant victim who are arrayed as LW1 and LW2 are politically influential persons and they are having money and muscle power - Aforesaid LW1 and LW2 and Public Prosecutor of Principal District and Session Court have got close association and therefore petitioner apprehends that he may not get justice if case is conducted by learned Public Prosecutor who has been appointed by ruling Party - Hence he seeks transfer of case – Held, Even Courts mechanically give their seal of approval of candidates proposed by Government as Law Officers though Section 24 Criminal Procedure Code Speaks about consultation with High Court or District Court for appointment of Public Prosecutor - Courts should play active role as stated above regarding appointment of Law Officers Public Prosecutor by considering merits of prospective candidates to be appointed as Law Officers as held by Hobble Apex – State however while appointing a counsel must take into account following fundamental principles which are required to be observed that good and competent lawyers are required to be appointed for good administration of justice to fulfill its duty to uphold rule of law its accountability to public and expenditure from taxpayers’ money - Only when good and competent counsel are appointed by State public interest would be safeguarded - State while appointing Public Prosecutors must bear in mind that for purpose of upholding rule of law good administration of justice is imperative which in turn would have a direct impact on sustenance of democracy - No appointment of Public Prosecutors or District Counsel should thus be made either for pursuing a political purpose or for giving some undue advantage to a section of people - Retention of its counsel by State must be weighed on scale of public interest - State should replace an efficient honest and competent lawyer inter alia when it is in a position to appoint a more competent lawyer - In such an event even a good performance by a lawyer may not be of much importance - Hence this Court hopes only suitable fair and competent advocates with ability and integrity are appointed as law officers which is a must in interest of society State and Courts and appropriate rules or regulations for appointment of Law Officers are to be framed – Petition is dismissed
N. KIRUBAKARAN, J.
1. Law Officer should be law knowing person and not political leader knowing person. Law Officer post is not a political post, but, it is a public post with greater responsibility in the administration of justice. Unless appointment of law officers is made fairly based on the merit, ability and integrity, this kind of petition stating political reasons cannot be avoided. The petition has been filed by the accused to transfer S.C. No. 63 of 2014 from the file of learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Trichy to the file of learned Principal and Sessions Judge, Pudukottai.
2. Heard Mr. Veerakathiravan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Palanivelayutham, learned counsel appearing for the Intervenor in M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2014 in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 15945 of 2014 and Mr. A.P. Balasubramaniam, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side).
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 13.12.2013, the victim was attacked by the accused and others and he was admitted in the hospital, where he died. Originally, a case has been registered under Sections 294(b), 341, 307 of I.P.C. After investigation, final report has been filed against the petitioner and others under Sections 341, 302 of I.P.C. read with Section 34 of I.P.C. Originally, the case was filed in P.R.C. No. 2 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Musiri and subsequently the same was committed to the Principal District and Sessions Court, Tiruchirapalli in S.C. No. 63 of 2014. There are four accused and the petitioner in the above Criminal Original Petition has been arrayed as A1. The Sessions case is sought to be transferred from Principal Sessions Court, Trichy to District Court, Pudukottai to some other District Court by the petitioner/accused stating that the sons of the defacto complainant/victim, namely Jayaraman and Ravikumar, who are arrayed as LW1 and LW2, are politically influential persons and they are having money and muscle power. The aforesaid LW1 and LW2 and the Public Prosecutor of Principal District and Session Court Trichy have got close association and therefore, the petitioner apprehends that he may not get justice, if the case is conducted by the learned Public Prosecutor, who has been appointed by the ruling Party. Hence, he seeks transfer of the case.
4. Mr. Veerakathiravan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that LW1 and LW2 are office bearers of the ruling Party and the learned Public Prosecutor also belongs to the same Party and that one of the Ministers only made the petitioner as accused in the case. That apart, the petitioner is facing threat from LW1 and LW2 and in this regard, a complaint dated 22.12.2013 has been given. The petitioner has no confidence in the learned Public Prosecutor. The Public Prosecutor for the Sessions Court has been appointed in consultation with the Local Minister and MLA. Hence, the petitioner has no confidence in the Public Prosecutor. He relied upon the following judgments to state as to what is the role of the learned Public Prosecutor.
1. Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra, 1994 (4) SCC 602
2. State of U.P. vs. Johri Mal, 2004 (4) SCC 714
3. Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2008 (10) SCC 180
4. J. Jayalalitha vs. State of Karnataka, 2014 (2) SCC 401
5. Manu Sharma vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2010 (6) SCC 1
Making the above contentions, he seeks transfer of the case.
5. Mr. Palanivelayutham, learned counsel appearing for the impleading petitioner would submit that the above case is a murder case, which occurred on 13.12.2013. After investigation, the final report was filed and committal proceedings were over. Summons were already served. When the matter is posted for Trial, the petitioner intends to drag on the proceedings with false pleas. There is no material to prove the allegations made by the petitioner. The petitioner herein is also from the same ruling Party and he is the President of the Village. He r
