KANNAPPAN Vs. ABBAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in C.C. No. 177 of 1982, has filed this revision against the order of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ponneri, permitting the Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II, to defend the accused, who are police officers.

(2.) A few facts leading to this revision may be stated. The complainant and his men were charge-sheeted by the Thiruvottiyur Police for offences under Ss. 147, 148, 323, 324, 336, 341 and 307, I.P.C. in Crime No. 1046 of 1981 for the occurrence that took place in September 1981. They were arrested and later released on bail. After release on bail, the complainant laid a private complaint before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ponneri, on 2-1-1982, complaining that the respondents-accused, who are police officers, ill-treated him and his men and thereby committed offences under Ss. 323, 341 and 342, I.P.C. read with S. 34 and 109, I.P.C. The learned Magistrate took the complaint on file on 2-1-1982, and issued summons to the accused. The accused engaged a lawyer of their own choice and two witnesses were examined on the side of the complainant. Thereafter, the accused appeared to have moved the Superintendent of Police, Chengalpattu, who directed the Assistant Public Prosecutor, Grade I, to instruct the A. P. P. (II), Poonamallee to appear on behalf of the accused and defend them. Accordingly, the A. P. P. II, Poonamallee, filed his memo of appearance and the trial Court permitted him to defend the accused. Thereupon, the complainant filed a petition before the trial Court stating that the A. P. P. II should not be permitted to appear for the accused even though the latter are police officers, since it is contrary to the Code of Criminal Procedure and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned Magistrate heard both parties, overruled the objections raised by the complainant and dismissed the application. Hence, the revision by the complainant seeking to set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ponneri, permitting the A. P. P. II, to appear for the accused.

(3.) The respondents-accused have filed a counter stating that this private complaint is only a counter blast to the police case in Crime No. 1046 of 1981 and that the private complaint is highly belated. On merits, the accused-respondents contend that the trial Court permitted the appearance of A. P. P. II, Poonamallee, to defend the accused and that the same is within his judicial discretion. According to the accused, the application objecting to the appearance of A. P. P. II, is vindictive, motivated and intended to harass the police officers in respect of an occurrence which took place in September 1981. In the end, they would state that the police case against the complainant and others has ended in acquittal and that the present complaint is nothing but harassment.