GOPALKRISHNA S/O LATE LANKAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two orders were passed by the State Government dated 3.2.2017 & 2.3.2017 respectively appointing the third respondent as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the case in SC No.147/2017 (Crime No.15/2017) pending on the file of I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District and before this Court arising out of the same. Challenging the said orders two writ petitions were filed, W P Nos.9212-13/2018 challenging the order dated 2.3.2017 and W P No.3334/2018 challenging the order dated 3.2.2017 by the appellants, who are accused in the Sessions Case. The learned Single Judge by the common order dated 01.03.2018 dismissed both the writ petitions on the ground that complainants or the accused persons are nor entitled to choose the advocates of the opposite parties or the Judge. Being aggrieved, the present writ appeals (WA Nos.1199-1200/2018 against order passed in WP Nos.9212- 9213/2018) and (WA No.1220/2018 against the order in WP No.3334/2018) are filed.

(2.) The grievance of the appellants in both the appeals is one and the same. It is their grievance that learned Single Judge holding that the appellants have no locus standi to challenge the order appointing Special Public Prosecutor is contrary to the decisions rendered by the Apex Court as well as this Court. The third respondent is appointed as the Special Public Prosecutor to represent the State and the remuneration payable is to be paid by the complainant and thus the third respondent who is a private counsel and not a prosecutor representing represent the State, cannot fairly discharge the duties. It is stated, no reasons are assigned in the notification as to what prompted the Government to appoint the third respondent as the Special Public Prosecutor. The State Government has abdicated its responsibility entrusting its brief to a private party. It is stated, office of the public prosecutor should not be permitted to be denigrated into a legalized means for wrecking private vengeance which is being nurtured by the complainant, by getting lawyer of his choice appointed as the Special Public Prosecutor. It is the further grievance of the appellants that if the learned Single Judge was not agreeable with the precedents, the option open was to refer to Division Bench and not to take a different view.

(3.) We have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri C V Nagesh for Sri Phaniraj Kashyap, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri A S Ponnanna, Senior Counsel & Additional Advocate General for S S Mahendra, Additional Government Advocate for R1 to 3 and R5 and perused the impugned order.