The main legal point established is the duty to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor to ensure a fair trial, as well as the duty of the Prosecutor to be impartial and present all material facts before the court.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the case in S.C. No.240/2018 on the file of Principal District Judge, Vellore, on the basis of the representation given by the petitioner on 16.09.2021.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the case in S.C. No.240/2018 on the file of Principal District Judge, Vellore, on the basis of the representation given by the petitioner on 16.09.2021.

2. The case of the prosecution as seen in the charge sheet in S.C. No.240/2018 is that the deceased Mahendran was the father of the petitioner and he was a Block Development Officer at Anaicut. On the day of the occurrence Mahendran was at the Block Development Office, Anaicut to get a deal done. While he was discussing with the officials about the bill at the Block Development Office, the accused with a common object of causing death to the petitioner''s father Mahendran formed an unlawful assembly among themselves and stabbed and inflicted cut injuries on Mahendran by using deadly weapons. The deceased ran into the computer room in the Block Development Office with injuries, fell down and died on spot in a pool of blood. On the complaint given by the petitioner a case was registered against the accused in Cr. No.64/2018 by the first respondent. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused in S.C. No.240/2018 for the offences under Section 147, 148, 302, 506(ii), 149, 120(b) IPC and the case has been taken cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vellore and the same was committed to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore.

3. It is alleged that after P.W.1 was examined, he was not cross-examined for several hearings. The first accused Manimaran is a highly influencial person in the ruling political party and he was holding a post of Chairman, Anaicut Panchayat. Thiru. Parthiban, the District Public Prosecutor at Vellore, was also holding a post of Secretary of District DMK- Advocates Wing. Both the first accused Manimaran, and the District Prosecutor worked together for various reasons in view of their political connection. Hence it is not proper in the interest of justice to allow the present Prosecutor to appear in a case where his close associate is an accused. Hence the petitioner had given a representation on 16.09.2021 to the respondent to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the trial in the case.

4. Since his representation was not considered and the case is being adjourned for several hearings, the petitioner had filed this petition seeking direction to the first respondent to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the case in S.C. No.240/2018.

5. Heard Mr.D.Rajagopal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Gopinath, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side).

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides a right of free and fair trial for the aggrieved; the long association between the District Public Prosecutor and the first accused will not ensure a fair and free trial in this case; there is every likelihood for bias in the mind of District Public Prosecutor in favour of the first accused; there is a reasonable apprehension in the minds of the petitioner that the district prosecutor might take side with the accused. The judgement of the Supreme Court held in the case of K.Anbazhagan Vs. Superintendent of Police reported in (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 767 is relied; the way in which the accused got adjournment in S.C. No.240/2018 from February 2018 to till date for cross examination would only show that the case will not be progressed in the manner it ought to be; the State is empowered to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor if the person to be appointed has been in legal pra