1. The 2nd respondent, Sri Shankar Rao Bowgikar, was a Lower Division Clerk in the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. He is a law graduate. He has also a Post - Graduate Diploma in LSGD.

2. A Court has been specially constituted to deal with the cases arising under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In fact, its entire expenditure, including the pay and allowances of the Magistrate, is borne by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. It is now called the VII Metropolitan Magistrate's Court. There was a Court Inspector in that Court appointed by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad to conduct cases arising under the , and one Madhava Rao was working as the Court Inspector. He was promoted as Superintendent. In his place the 2nd respondent was promoted as the Court Inspector by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad on 10th May, 1979. When he was conducting S.T.C. No.140/1981, the accused took an objection that the 2nd respondent was not appointed as Public Prosecutor under S.25 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, and, therefore, he could not conduct the prosecution. The learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate upheld the objection. Aggrieved by h