MARY JOHN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the issue raised in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by the following common order.

(2.) IN both the writ petitions, the petitioners are seeking to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from conducting the case in S.C.No.178 of 2001 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Nagercoil with the 5th respondent as a Special Public Prosecutor and without appointing a competent Public Prosecutor in accordance with law.

(3.) THE writ petitioners are first accused and the ninth accused in S.C.No.178 of 2001, now pending on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Nagercoil. Both of them were charge sheeted for an offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 325, 307, 302 of IPC read with 149 and 109 IPC. When the petitions filed by the accused in Criminal O.P.No.20419 of 2001 in this Court for quashing the case in S.C.No.178 of 2001, this Court by order dated 06.11.2001, directed the disposal of S.C.No.178 of 2001 and other connected cases within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Pursuant to the said direction, it is seen that the Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari has requested the second respondent for appointment of three Special Public Prosecutors immediately to conduct the above cases. It is further seen from the official memorandum D.No.6976 of 2002 of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, the 5th respondent, namely Thiru. Thiyagarajan, A.P.P. Grade-I, J.M. Court No.II, Tirunelveli and two others have been appointed as Special Public Prosecutors to conduct the prosecution in S.C.No.178 of 2001 etc., and the learned Sessions Judge has also informed that the said cases stand posted to 28.11.2002 for framing charges. Since the order appointing the 5th respondent as Special Public Prosecutor has not been placed before this Court, it is useful to refer the official memorandum of the learned District Judge, which reads as under.