SUSEY JOSE Vs. G JANARDHANA KURUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First respondent was appointed as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution in a murder case in the Sessions Court. But when the trial in the Sessions Court was in full swing, Government rescinded his appointment as per G.O. dated 18-7-91 (Ext. P3). Within a fortnight, Government directed an Assistant Public Prosecutor (for short 'the APP') to conduct prosecution in the said case (Ext. P6). The widow of the deceased in the murder case now challenges Exts.P3. and P6 and prays for quashing them and also to issue necessary directions in the matter. (Ext. P4 is also sought to be quashed which is substantially the same as Ext. P3 and hence the former cannot remain alive if the latter is struck down).

(2.) The murder case relates to the death of a person in police custody on 12-11-85. There was public agitation for entrusting the investigation to a more specialised agency than the local police. Government, therefore, ordered the Crime Branch wing of the police to take up investigation. Eventually, the case was charge sheeted against five police personnel - one Sub Inspector, one Assistant Sub Inspector, one Head Constable and two Constables. (They are arrayed as respondents 5 to 9 in this o.p.).

(3.) Petitioner has made an endeavour to impress that the case has gained sensation in the State and due to the special nature of the case the Government wanted to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor to conduct prosecution. Appointment of the first respondent was, according to the petitioner, the follow up of the aforesaid stand of the government. First respondent took up the prosecution and the trial started in the Sessions Court on 15-7-91. PWs 1 to 6 were examined for the prosecution. But abruptly the trial came to a stop as the counsel for the first accused produced a copy of Ext. P3 order in open court on 19-7-91 and informed the court that first respondent lost the authority to continue with the prosecution.