The SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 empowers the victim of atrocity to choose their lawyer for a fair trial, and the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor is in line with the provisions of the Act.

ORDER :

(Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned orders of the respondent in Na.Ka.No.T4/676688/2023 dated 24.03.2023 and quash the same.)

Mr. M. Sarangan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent. By consent, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of the respondent in Na.Ka.No.T4/676688/2023 dated 24.03.2023, wherein, the respondent has appointed Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian, Advocate, as Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the Spl.S.C.No.36 of 2019 on the file of the PCR Court, Trichy, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 420, 447, 294(b), 354(i) IPC r/w 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2) (va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, based on the representation given by the defacto complainant.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Government Servant and he is working as Junior Assistant in the Backward Class Department since 2013. He would further submit that it is a false case filed only to damage the image of the petitioner. He would further submit that on 09.02.2023, when the said case has been posted before the trial Court for arguments, the entire trial has been completed. Thereafter, the present impugned order has been passed based on the representation of the defacto complainant. Hence, this present writ petition came to be filed challenging the said impugned order of appointment.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that the said special case has been registered under the special Act of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is the prerogative of the District Collector to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor at any point of time whenever it is necessary and in this particular case, it is understood that the defacto complainant has made an application dated 04.12.2023 seeking the respondent/District Collector to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the prosecution case effectively and considering the same, the impugned order came to be passed appointing Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian as the Special Public Prosecutor.

5. Considering the fact that the special case has been registered under the Special Act, it is the prerogative of the defacto complainant to seek appointment of eminent lawyer as the Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the prosecution case at any stage to ensure the justice for the victim. It is the Special Act which was enacted especially for upholding the right of the underprivileged SC/ST community.

6. Further, this Court, by an order dated 19.02.2016, in W.P(MD)No.246 of 2016, dealt with the similar issue. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows:-

“7. Before deciding the issue on hand, this Court feels it appropriate to extract the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules, touching upon this case, as under:

“Section 15. For every Special Court, the State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify a Public Prosecutor or appoint an advocate who has been in practice as an advocate for not less than seven years, as a Special Public Prosecutor for the purpose of conducting cases in that Court.”

“Section 21. (1) Subject to such rules as the Central Government may make in this behalf, the State Government shall take such measures as may be necessary for the effective implementation of this Act. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, such measures may include,-

(i) the provision for adequate facilities, including legal aid to the persons subjected to atrocities to enable them to avail themselves of justice:

(ii) the provision for travelling and maintenance expenses to witnesses, including the victims of atrocities, during investigation and trial of offences under