JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 16-6-2011 (Annexure P/3), by which the respondent No. 3 has been appointed as Special Public Prosecutor under section 24(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code and also against the order dated 4-8-2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Jude No. 5, Indore rejecting the petitioners' objection in this regard.

2. The case of the petitioners is that they and their family members are facing the criminal trial in several criminal cases registered at the instance of the respondent No. 4, who is the daughter-in-law of the petitioner No. 1 and wife of the petitioner No. 2. In all these cases the petitioners and their family members have been released on bail, and in most of these cases the respondent No. 4 has engaged the respondent No. 3 as her Advocate. In Sessions Trial No. 15/2011 pending against the petitioners, the State has appointed the respondent No. 3 as Special Public Prosecutor by the impugned order dated 18-6-2011 exercising the powers under section 24(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Petitioners had objected before the trial Court to the appointment of the respondent No. 3 as Special Public Prosecutor but by the order dated 4-8-2011 the objection of the petitioners has been rejected, therefore, they have approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

3. The respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed the reply stating that the respondent No. 4 had filed the application dated 3-11-2011 requesting for appointment of respondent No. 3 as Special Public Prosecutor under section 24(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code. On that application the No Objection was received from the Public Prosecutor and Superintendent of Police. The respondent No. 3 had sent the communication dated 14-6-2011 to the Principal Secretary, Law and Legislative Affairs Department, stating that he was not engaged as an advocate by respondent No. 4 at any point of time. He had also filed the affidavit that he will not charge any fee from the Government, and the respondent No. 4 had filed the affidavit that she would bear the expenses of the fee of the respondent No. 3. Keeping in view this aspect of the matter, the respondent No. 3 was appointed as Special Public Prosecutor.

4. The respondent No. 4 has filed the reply stating that she had made a request to the respondent No. 2 for appointment of respondent No. 3 as Special Public Prosecutor and that there is no bar for appointment of the respondent No. 3 as Special Public Prosecutor even if he has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 4. She has admitted that the respondent No. 3 had appeared in some bail matters on her behalf.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the appointment of the respondent No. 3 as Special Public Prosecutor has been made in mechanical manner merely on asking by the respondent No. 4. He further submits that the impugned order dated 16-6-2011 is a non speaking order, and that such an appointment will cause serious prejudice to the petitioners since the respondent No. 3 has been appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4, and that it is not an exceptional case requiring appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor. He further submitted that the respondent No. 4 would be paying the fee of the respondent No. 3 as Special Public Prosecutor out of the maintenance amount paid to her by the petitioner No. 2, which amounts to the payment of fee by the petitioner No. 2 for engaging an advocate against himself.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have supported the impugned order and submitted that as per the requirement of section 24(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code the respondent No. 3 fulfils the eligibility conditions, therefore, no reasons are required to be assigned for his appointment and it is the discretion of the State to appoint any person as Special Public Prosecutor who fulfils the eligibility conditions mentioned in section 24(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code. They