JAGADISH CHIDANAND KORE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks for a writ of certiorari to quash the Notification dated 12/4/2007 bearing No. OE 167 PPE 2007 vide Annexure-A.

(2.) The Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri. A.K. Kotrashetty, submits that at the request of the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent has been appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor vide the impugned Notification dated 12-4-2007 vide Annexure-A. He contends that the impugned Notification is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of K.V. SHIVA REDDY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA1 that there are no reasons in the impugned order to justify the said appointment; that the impugned order has been passed mechanically on the mere asking by respondent No.3 and that the appointment is not a suo motu appointment, but due to the fact that 1.2005(4) Crimes 518(Kar.) the injured person is politically influential; that the Director of Prosecution is the best Judge as to who should conduct the trial and that by virtue of the impugned order aspersions would be cast on the regular Public Prosecutor who is attached to the Court.

(3.) To substantiate his grounds, the petitioner has vehemently contended that the impugned order has been passed due to political reasons since one of the injured person is a politically influential. He submits that there is no public interest involved which warrants the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor. Therefore, the violation of Section 24(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code being writ large, the impugned order requires to be quashed. He also contended that any appointment under Section 24(8) should be made only in public interest and cannot be made only because the complainant or the injured seeks for an appointment.