MARY JOOSA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this court seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor to conduct Session Case which was at that time at the Preliminary stage before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, North Paravur. She had issued Ext. P1 notice seeking appointment of a Special Prosecutor and she had also forwarded the consent of the advocate of her choice. Now, it is disclosed in CMP 7919/1997 that the Government had issued Ext. P6 order, based on the notice directing the District Collector to entrust the case to the District Government Pleader. Now, the case is being tried as SC 42/96 of Sessions Court, Paravur. It is stated that it is later transferred to IVth Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam. So, the petitioner sought to amend the original petition impugning Ext. P6 as well.

(2.) The petitioner's son succumbed to injuries while he was in a hospital. He sustained injuries from a policeman, according to the petitioner. The policeman inflicted brutal attack on the body of his son. Crime Branch investigated the case. Investigation revealed that it was a case of murder. The petitioner submits that in order to attain justice for the petitioner, petitioner forwarded a representation by way of a notice before the respondents under S.24(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to appoint an advocate of the petitioner's choice as a Special Prosecutor to conduct prosecution in this murder case. That is the basis for the petitioner's request for appointment of a Special Prosecutor. Appointment of Special Prosecutor is governed by S.24(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It reads as under:

(3.) Another ground urged by the petitioner is that the accused persons are influential Police Officers and therefore appointment of the Special Prosecutor of the petitioner's choice is necessary. I am not impressed with that submission. The District Government Pleader of the District is competent to conduct a case in which the Police officers figure as accused. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the case. Challenge against Ext. P6 fails.