S. VEERALAKSHMI Vs. DISTRIC COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the defacto complainant to direct the first respondent to appoint Mr.Bhagavath Singh, practicing advocate of Madurai District as Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the trial in Special S.C.No.120 of 2016, pending on the file of the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, (PCR), Madurai.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the defacto complainant and victim in Special S.C.No.120 of 2016, on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, (PCR), Madurai. He further submitted that the rule 4(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, enables the petitioner to make a request to the first respondent to appoint an advocate for conducting cases in the Special courts and on such request, the first respondent has to appoint the said advocate for conducting the said case. He further submitted that said advocate Mr.G.Bhagavath Singh also gave a consent letter on 03.11.2017 and the petitioner has submitted her request letter on 06.11.2017 to the first respondent through speed post and also submitted another requisition on 13.11.2017 in the Grievance Cell of the first respondent and even thereafter, the first respondent has not passed any order on the said requisitions and hence, he has requested the Court to direct the first respondent to appoint the aforesaid Mr.G.Bhagavath Singh, advocate to conduct the trial in Special S.C.No.120 of 2016 on the file of the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, (PCR), Madurai. In support of the said contention, he relied upon a decision in R.Kandasamy Vs. District Collector, Salem District, Salem, 2013 4 MadLJ(Cri) 339.

(3.) The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 has submitted that already, a Special Public Prosecutor has been appointed to conduct the cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, before the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, (PCR), Madurai and the chief examination of P.W.1 was also taken and under the said circumstances, another advocate need not be appointed to conduct the trial.