SHIBU N. N Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By Ext. P3 notification dated 25/09/2007, Government appointed Sri. K. P. Rajeevan, Advocate, Ernakulam as Special Public prosecutor for the conduct of prosecution in SC No. 357/2004 on the file of Sessions Court, Ernakulam. The explanatory note to the notification shows that Government considered it necessary to appoint Sri. K. P. Rajeevan, Advocate, who is having the requisite qualification for being appointed as Special Public Prosecutor, to conduct the said case. Evidence in the case was partly recorded. At that stage Ext. P4 order was passed on 23/05/2008, cancelling the appointment of Sri. K. P. Rajeevan with immediate effect. This petition is filed under Art.226 of Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to permit Sri. K. P. Rajeevan to continue as Special Public Prosecutor and to declare that he is entitled to continue with the conduct of the prosecution in SC No. 357/2004.

(2.) Director General of Prosecutions filed a statement, which discloses that one K. K. Sivan submitted a representation before him revealing that he is the eleventh accused in SC No. 357/2004 and a counter case was registered as Crime No. 74/2001 of Piravom Police Station and a special Public Prosecutor was not appointed in that case because of political influence and a Special Prosecutor is appointed in SC No. 357/2004. A copy of the petition filed before the Additional Chief Secretary, Home and Vigilance Department against the appointment of Special Public Prosecutor was also produced before him. It is also stated that on a perusal of the averments in the petition, Director General of Prosecutions was convinced that Special Public Prosecutor was appointed by the State without his recommendation and in violation of the Circular issued by Government of Kerala and therefore, he addressed the Additional Chief Secretary, along with the representation of Sivan, to cancel the appointment of Sri. K. P. Rajeevan and by Ext. P4 order, his appointment was cancelled.

(3.) Learned counsel, who appear for accused 14 and 15 in SC No. 357/2004, submitted that accused 14 and 15 filed an application to implead themselves as additional respondents and the case is unnecessarily being protracted before the Sessions Court and a direction be issued to dispose the case expeditiously. As the presence of accused 14 and 15 is not necessary to decide the question involved in the case, it is not necessary to implead them as additional respondents. Hence, the application to implead accused 14 and 15 as additional respondents is dismissed.