MOHAMMED ASIF Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE Public Prosecutor takes notice. Heard immediately with consent of the parties.

(2.) THE writ petition herein involves an unusual but interesting question of law. THE petitioner questions the decision on the part of the Government to appoint more than one Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the trial against the petitioner.

(3.) THE learned counsel then argued that under the provisions, there was nothing to show that the Government, Central or State could appoint more than one Public Prosecutor or Special Public Prosecutor for one case, unless the appointment of the erstwhile Public Prosecutor is cancelled. My attention was drawn to the fact that in a Sessions Case against the petitioner, which concerns the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, more than one Public Prosecutor would be conducting the prosecution owing to the appointments made in the questioned Government Orders without cancelling the earlier appointment. THE learned counsel urges that this is not permissible at all under the provisions. THEse arguments are more or less based on the observations of the Apex Court in Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar , AIR 1983 SC 194 which case was heavily relied upon by Mr. Jothi. That was a case, where some accused persons were being prosecuted for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. THE Chief Judicial Magistrate had already issued a process against the accused. One Shri Awadhesh Kumar Dutt, Senior Advocate, was appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor during the pendency of the case. One of the accused replaced the erstwhile Chief Minister and formed his Government. THE Government headed by the accused, without cancelling the appointment of Shri Awadhesh Kumar Dutt and others, prosecuted to appoint a fresh panel of lawyers for conducting the case and one Shri Lalan Prasad Sinha, who was one of the panel advocates, was allotted the case against the Chief Minister. He, on instructions of the Government, proceeded to withdraw from the prosecution under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This withdrawal was challenged before the High Court which confirmed the withdrawal by dismissing the revision petition in limine . THE Apex Court was considering the correctness or otherwise of the withdrawal and the confirmation thereof by the High Court.