K. ANBAZHAGAN Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing is considered for final disposal by consent of counsel for the parties, having regard to the narrow compass on which the petition turns.

(2.) HEARD the learned Senior Advocate Shri C.V. Nagesh, appearing for the Counsel for the petitioner - Shri A. Saravana; the learned Advocate General Prof. Ravi Verma Kumar and the Additional Government Advocate Shri I. Tharanath Poojary for Respondents 1, 2 and 4; the learned Senior Advocate Shri D.L.N. Rao appearing for the Counsel for Respondent No. 3 - Smt. S.R. Anuradha; and the learned Senior Advocate Shri Tomy Sebastian, appearing for the Counsel for the respondent No. 5, Shri K. Diwakar.

(3.) THE learned Senior Advocate Shri Nagesh would point out that the directions issued however, were in respect of the trial. And the appointment made by the State Government of Karnataka insofar as the fifth respondent - Bhavani Singh was concerned, stood terminated with the conclusion of the trial and when the judgment of the trial court was rendered. The representation before this court in the pending appeals could not be made by Shri Bhavani Singh on the appointment said to have been made by the State Government of Tamil Nadu, as the very object of transferring the matter to the State of Karnataka, was to ensure that the case was completely insulated from the State Government of Tamil Nadu and its agencies. It is contended that the appointment is not only counter to the directions of the Supreme Court, but would seriously prejudice the case on yet another count. The learned Senior Advocate would add that there were instances of serious omissions and commissions on the part of Shri Singh, in the conduct of the trial and even the trial court has expressed its displeasure regarding his conduct. The emphasis is on the aspect that in view of the specific directions of the Supreme Court, the State Government of Karnataka having appointed a Public Prosecutor, it would again be for the Supreme Court to indicate as to who should represent the prosecution before this court, as the directions issued in Anbazhagan's case, supra, is clearly with reference to the procedure in so far as the trial was concerned and hence would conclude that the respondent No. 5 would have no locus standi to represent the prosecution, on the strength of the authorization issued by the State of Tamil Nadu.