Back
2000 Supreme(MP) 654
2000 (2) JLJ 321
A.K. Gohil, J.
Radheshyam v. State of M.P. and others
Cr. Revn. No. 68 of 2000; against the order of Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhar, in
Sessions Trial No. 239 of 1997; Decided on 31.7.2000.
R.P. Shukla for applicant
M. Soni, Panel Lawyer for State; Jai Singh for respondent Nos. 2 to 6.
Headnote:(1) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 24 (8) -- special public prosecutor -- should not be appointed on mere asking of complainant -- such appointment results in ouster of regularly appointed public prosecutor -- creates feeling of distrust. 1999 (1) MPLJ SN 36 relied on. [Para 7
(2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 301 (2) and 24(8) -- counsel engaged by complainant -- cannot be appointed as special public prosecutor -- counsel can only assist the public prosecutor -- cannot act as public prosecutor. 1999 (2) MPLJ 703 relied on. [Para 8
(3) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 24 (8) and 301 -- appointment of special public prosecutor -- should be in exceptional cases -- reasons should be recorded. 1992 (2) Vidhi Bhasvar 52 relied on. [Para 9
(4) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 24 -- public prosecutor, additional public prosecutor and assistant public prosecutor -- hold public office -- it is an office of trust.
It is public office of trust and therefore like any other public office, is susceptible to misuse and corruption if not properly insulated.
It is an office of responsibility more important than many others because the holder is required to prosecute with detachment on the one hand and yet with vigour on the other. When advocates are recruited to these offices, they have certain professional and official obligations and privileges. (1982) 2 CrLJ 2085 and (1981) 2 CrLJ 1779 relied on. (1988) 3 SCC 144 followed. [Para 9, 10 & 11
(5) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 24 (8) -- special public prosecutor -- can be appointed to protect interest of State in administration of criminal justice -- independent, impartial and lawyers of status and repute should be so appointed.
No doubt in important criminal cases, where it is not expected from the Public Prosecutor that he will conduct the trial independently, the Government can appoint Special Public Prosecutor with a view to protect the interest of the State in administration of criminal justice, but in such cases, only independent, impartial, and lawyers of status and repute should be appointed as Public Prosecutors, so that they may conduct the cases without any prejudices and unbiased attitude. [para 13
(6) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 397, 301 (2) and 24(8) -- relation of complainant appointed as special public prosecutor -- trial Court already permitted him to assist public prosecutor -- no interference called for in revision.
In the impugned order, except this allegation that the petitioner is in relation with the complainant party, there are no other allegations against him for taking any vindictive attitude against the accused persons, But in view of the decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court that only independent person should be permitted to prosecute the prosecution case and considering this fact that the learned trial Court has already granted permission to Shri Shukla u/s 301(2) to assist. the Public Prosecutor or the Addl. Public Prosecutor. Therefore, it would not be proper for this Court, when hearing the revision under section 397 CrPC to interfere in the order passed by the learned trial Court, as the scope of interference is limited in revision. [Para 15
¼1½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 24¼8½ && fo‘ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd && ek= ifjoknh dh ek¡x dj fu;qDr ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg, && ,slh fu;qfDr ls fu;fer :i ls fu;qDr yksd vfHk;kstd dk gVk;k tkuk ifj.kkfer gksrk gS && vfo‘okl dh Hkkouk l`ftr gksrh gSA 1999 ¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts ,l ,u 36 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 7À
¼2½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 301¼2½ rFkk 24¼8½ && ifjoknh }kjk fu;qDr dkmUlsy && fo‘ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd ds :i esa fu;qDr ugha fd;k tk ldrk && dkmUlsy yksd vfHk;kstd dh lgk;rk ek= dj ldrk gS && yksd vfHk;kstd ds :i esa dk;Z ugha dj ldrkA 1999 ¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 703 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 8À
¼3½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 24¼8½ rFkk 301 && fo‘ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd dh fu;qfDr && vkiokfnd ekeyksa esa gksuk pkfg, && dkj.k vfHkfyf[kr fd, tkuk pkfg,A 1999 ¼2½ fof/k HkkLoj 52 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 9À
¼4½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 24 && yksd vfHk;kstd] vij yksd vfHk;kstd rFkk lgk;d yksd vfHk;kstd && yksd in /kkj.k djrs gS && ;g fo‘okl dk in gSA
;g fo‘okl dk yksd in gS vr%] vU; fdlh Hkh yksd in ds leku] ;fn mfpr vusd inksa ls vf/kd egRoiw.kZ mÙkjnkf;Ro dk in gS D;ksafd /kkjd ls visf{kr gS fd ,d vkSj rVLFk gksdj rFkkfi nwljh vkSj mRlkgiwoZd vfHk;kstu djsa tc vf/koDrkvksa dks bl in ij HkrhZ fd;k tkrk gS rc mudh dfri; o`fÙkd vkSj inh; ck/;rk,¡ rFkk fo‘ks"kkf/kdkj gksrs gSA ¼1982½ 2 lhvkj ,y ts 2085 rFkk ¼1981½ 2 lhvkj ,y ts 1779 voyafcrA ¼1983½ 3 ,l lh lh 144 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 9] 10 ,oa 11À
¼5½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 24¼8½ fo‘ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd && nkafMd U;k; ds iz‘kklu esa jkT; dk fgr ljaf{kr djus ds fy, fu;qDr fd, tk ldrs gS && Loar=. fu"i{k rFkk gSfl;r;qDr vkSj [;kfr izkIr odhy bl izdkj fu;qDr fd, tkuk pkfg,A
fuLlansg lansg] egRoiw.kZ vkijkf/kd ekeyksa esa tgk¡ yksd vfHk;kstd ls izR;kf‘kr ugha gS fd og fopkj.k dk lapkyu Lora=rk ls djsxk] nkafMd U;k; ds iz‘kklu esa jkT; dk fgr ljaf{kr djus dh –f"V ls ljdkj }kjk fo‘ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd fu;qDr fd;k tk ldrk gS] ijarq ,sls ekeyksa esa] Lora=] fu"i{k] rFkk gSfl;r;qDr vkSj [;kfrizkIr odhy gh yksd vfHk;kstd ds :i esa fu;qDr fd, tkuk pkfg, ftlls ;g ekeyksa dh dk;Zokgh fdUgha iwoZxzgksa ds fcuk rFkk fu"i{k :[k esa dj ldsaA ¿ iSjk 9À
¼6½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 397] 301¼2½ rFkk 24¼8½ && ifjoknh dk ukrsnkj fo‘ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd ds :i esa fu;qdr && fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk mls igys&gh yksd vfHk;kstd dh lgk;rk djus dh vuqKk nh xbZ && iqujh{k.k esa gLr{ksi okaNuh; ugha gSA
vkf{kIr vkns‘k esa] bl vfHkdFku ds flok; fd ;kph ifjoknhi{k dk ukrsnkj gS] mlds fo#) vfHk;qDr O;fDr;ksa ds fo#) izfr‘kks/kkRed :[k viukus ds dksbZ vU; vfHkdFku ugha gSA ijarq bl U;k;ky; rFkk mPpre U;k;ky; ds fofu‘p;ksa dh –f"V ls fd Loar= O;fDr dks gh vfHk;kstu dk ekeyk vfHk;ksftr djus dh vuqKk nh tkuk pkfg,] rFkk bl rF; ij fopkj djrs gq, fd fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk igys gh /kkjk 301 ¼2½ ds v/khu Jh ‘kqDyk dks yksd vfHk;kstd vFkok vij yksd vfHk;kstd dh lgk;rk djus dh vuqKk ns nh xbZ gS] naM izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 397 ds v/khu iqujh{k.k dh lquokbZ djrs le; bl U;k;ky; }kjk fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns‘k esa gLr{ksi mfpr ugha gksxk D;ksfd iqujh{k.k esa gLr{ksi dh O;kfIr lhfer gSA ¿ iSjk 15À
1. Petitioner has preferred this criminal revision U/S 397 and 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order passed on 16.11.99 by the Addl. Sessions Judge. Dhar by which the learned ASJ. has held that Shri R.P. Shukla cannot prosecute this case as a Special Public Prosecutor but he can only assist to the Public Prosecutor or the Assistant Public Prosecutor under the provisions of Section 301(2) of Cr.P. C.
2. 'The brief facts of the case are that a S.T.No. 239/97 State of M.P. v. Yogendra @ Yogesh and others is pending before the I A.S.J. Dhar. In this case Public Prosecutor and Addl. Public Prosecutor were prosecuting the sessions trial on behalf of the State upto 15.10.97. On 25.11.97 Shri RP. Shukla, Advocate filed an application U/S 301(2) Cr.P.C. before the A.SJ. and prayed that he be allowed to appear and assist Shri P.C. Jain. Addl. Public Prosecutor in the sessions trial because the Addl. Public Prosecutor is not prosecuting the case properly and working against the interest of prosecution. On this application no objection was conveyed by the Addl. Public Prosecutor and the application was allowed by the learned A.S.J. and Shri R.P. Shukla was permitted to assist the Public Prosecutor in the case and thereafter he was appearing and assisting in the trial. On 18.12.97 Shri Shukla filed a copy of the order issued by the Department of Law and Legislature, State of M.P. bearing No.1 (C) 74/97/21-B(2) dated 1.12.97 regarding his appointment as a Special Public Prosecutor for conducting this case on behalf of the State and since then Shri Shukla was appearing and conducting the case. On 4.11.99 the respondents-accused persons filed an application before the Sessions Court stating therein that the appointment of Shri Shukla is illegal as he is interested in the complainant and he is also related with the complainant party. Therefore, he cannot prosecute this case on behalf of the State independently. The respondents-accused persons in support of their case cited the case of Prabhat Agrawal v. State of M.P. and others [1999 (2) MPJR 276]. The learned A.S.J. after hearing both the parties on the application and also after hearing Shri Shukla allowed the objection of the respondents-accused persons on the ground that Shri Shukla is the father-in-law of the younger brother of complainant Radheshyam. Therefore, being an interested person he cannot prosecute the case independently. He is interested in the complainant party and the complainant party is keeping enmity on account of this, Therefore, it is not expected from him that he will discharge his duties independently as a Special Public Prosecutor. The learned ASJ. by order dated 16.11.99 allowed the aforesaid objection and-directed that Shri Shukla cannot act as a Special Public Prosecutor in this case being the close relative of the complainant but the learned trial Court directed that under the provisions of Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C. Shri Shukla can assist the Public Prosecutor or the Assistant Public Prosecutor in the case. Shri Shukla has challenged this order before this Court in this Revision.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. The submission of Shri Shukla is that he is not interested in the complainant. He is prosecuting the case independently and he is related distantly and not closely. His further submission is that the evidence of the prosecution has already been closed and the examination of the accused persons have also done, only defence evidence is remained to be produced. The trial shall be concluded within a very short period and, therefore, this revision be allowed and the impugned order passed by the trial Court be set aside and he be permitted to continue as a Special Public Prosecutor in this case. Shri Shukla relied on the decision of this Court in case of Chhattisgarh Mukti Morcha v. State of M.P. and others reported in 1995 JLJ 57] = 1995 MPLJ 995. according to which the State Govt. has rightly appointed him as a Special Public Prosecutor
