THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.32515 of 2024

ORDER

Heard Sri V.Raghunath, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5. With their consent, this writ petition is being taken up for disposal.

2. This writ petition is filed questioning the Memo dated 04.10.2024 issued by respondent No.3 regarding the entrustment of Crl.Appeal No.216/2022 on the file of VI AMSJ-cum-Spl.Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act Court, Secunderabad to Smt.P.Sailaja, Public Prosecutor, Prl.Sessions Court, Sanga Reddy District as not feasible as the appeal proceedings are at ending stage.

3. Facts in brief as stated in the affidavit are that the petitioner is a defacto complainant in Cr.No.120/2011 registered before the Tukaramgate Police Station. On 30.08.2011, petitioner lodged a complaint against Accused Nos.1 to 6 in which, it is stated that A.1 to A.4 being the principle vendors cheated petitioner by inducing to deliver Rs.24,00,000/- for the property bearing No.3-7-2227 to 3-7- 228, Sy.No.30 and 40, admeasuring 340 sq.yds., situated at Kakaguda, Secunderabad which was fraudulently registered by suppressing certain facts in favour of Bheemshetty Sreedhar by colluding and committing criminal conspiracy with Dinesh Dattar who was Sub-Registrar, Red Hills, Hyderabad which was already sold to the petitioner, which caused wrongful loss to the petitioner. After completion of investigation, Police, Tukaramgate Police Station filed charge sheet on 30.12.2011 and the Court took cognizance for the ofences under Sections 418, 420, 406, 467 and 120-B IPC and Section 82 of Registration Act, 1908 and numbered it as C.C.No.1100/2011. Subsequently, the then Joint Sub-Registrar (Dinesh Dattar) was impleaded as Accused No.6 as per the orders in Crl.M.P.No.2343/2012.

4. The petitioner’s case is that the trial Court acquitted A.6 inspite of the fact that a petition was filed for rectification of earlier charges by the learned Senior Additional Public Prosecutor vide Crl.M.P.No.92/2017 dated 09.07.2019. The Prosecution has filed Crl.Appeal No.216/2022 through Public Prosecutor, Metropolitan Session Judge Court, Nampally, Hyderabad to set aside the judgement of XXII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C.No.162/2017 dated 04.07.2022 and acquitted the accused in Cr.No.120/2011, Tukaramgate Police Station, Secunderabaed for the said offences. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has good grounds in appeal. The respondent No.5 requested the Public Prosecutor, Metropolitan Session Judge through letter No.Legal-1/0590/2022 dated 11.08.2022 to prefer an appeal against the judgment dated 04.07.2022 on the file of XXII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Secunderabad in C.C.No.162/2017 and basing on the request made by respondent No.5, respondent No.4 entrusted petitioner’s case to one Smt.K.Srivani, Addl.Public Prosecutor, Gr.I, IV Addl.Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad. It is further submitted that the said K.Srivani, Addl.Public Prosecutor, Gr.I, IV Addl.Metropolitan Session Judge Court, Hyderabad due to her ill-health was not able to conduct petitioner’s case diligently and further requested Ms.Sailaja, who knows about the case and also prepared appeal grounds after the direction from respondent No.5 vide letter No.1/0590/22022 dated 11.08.2022 and accordingly petitioner made a request to respondent No.1 requesting to appoint Smt.Sailaja, Public Prosecutor working at Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally and that the next date of hearing was on 26.07.204. However, respondent No.3 by impugned Memo dated 04.10.2024 has informed that the appointment of Smt.Sailaja, Public Prosecutor is not feasible, as the appeal proceedings are at ending stage. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed.

5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner draws attention of this Court to the Memo dated 04.10.2024 wherein a request was