JUSTINE SYLAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the de facto complainant in C.C. No.91 of 2009 and accused in C.C. No.286 of 2008, both of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Devikulam. Those cases according to the petitioner, arising from the same incident are posted for evidence on 17.03.2011. Complaint of petitioner is that the same Assistant Public Prosecutor is appearing in both the cases which is not proper. PETITIONER preferred Ext.P3, representation before the second respondent, the Director General of Prosecutions, Ernakulam to give charge of conduct of either of the two cases to another Assistant Public Prosecutor. The second respondent has not so far passed order on Ext.P3. Hence it is prayed that a direction may be given to the second respondent to give charge of conduct of either of the two cases referred above to another Assistant Public Prosecutor or in the alternative direct the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3, representation. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(2.) VARIOUS practical aspects of the matter in case another Assistant Public Prosecutor is directed to conduct either of the two cases are required to be considered since there is only one Magistrate's court at Devikulam and hence only one law Officer attached to that court. I consider it appropriate that the Director General of Prosecutions in the circumstances considered all relevant aspects and passed appropriate orders on Ext.P3. Resultantly, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Director General of Prosecutions, Ernakulam to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3, representation as early as possible. Learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Devikulam is directed to postpone trial of the case/cases referred above to a day after 21.03.2011 so that in the meantime the second respondent can take appropriate decision on Ext.P3, representation.