RAJAM Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PADMANABHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by the petitioner Mrs.Rajam wife of late Joseph of Thattanvillai Veedu, Kunnathoor post, Kanyakumari District under Section 482 of Crl.P.C. to direct the 3rd Respondent viz., the Secretary, Public (Law and Order -A) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai-9 to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the prosecution case in S.C.No.15/96 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge at Nagercoil in Kanyakumari District.

(2.) The material allegations in the affidavit of the petitioner filed in support of this application are as follows:- The petitioner is a poor widow. She is the wife of late Joseph, who died due to torture by seven persons at the police station at Puthukadai on 23-7-1991. Thereafter an enquiry under the Police Standing Order was conducted by the Revenue Divisional Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram, and on the basis of the enquiry report, the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms.No.1455 issued by the Public (Law and Order-A) Department dated 22-12-1992 directed theCollector of Kanyakumari District to launch criminal prosecution against seven persons including the 2nd Respondent herein, who is a Sub- Inspector of Police, before the appropriate Court. As a result a complaint was filed against the seven persons by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram and finally the case in S.C.No.15 of 1996 was committed to Sessions Court, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, and the accused were charged under Sections 147, 323, 302 and 201 of I.P.C. The Judicial Magistrate No.II at Kuzhithurai in Kanyakumari District in Crl.M.P.No.2660 of 1993 discharged the 2nd Respondent herein by his order dated 13-3-1995. Being aggrieved by the order, the petitioner and the 1st Respondent herein filed a Revision petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court at Nagercoil against the order of discharge passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II at Kuzhithurai in Crl.M.P.No.2660 of 1993, and the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge in Crl.R.C.No.64 of 1995 and 43 of 1995 allowed the Revision Petition and reversed the order of discharge. The case S.C.No. 15 of 1996 was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagercoil for trial. Now the case in S.C.No.15 of 1996 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagercoil is pending trial and 60 witnesses are cited in the charge sheet and the prosecution witness Nos.28, 41,42, 43, 44, 51 and 39 are strangely the accused in the case. During the enquiry under Section 200 of Crl.P.C.the prosecution witness Nos. 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 60 turned hostile due to the influence of the accused persons. The said custodial death of the petitioner's husband is a clear case of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. After the death of the petitioner's husband, the petitioner moved this Court and filed two writ petitions, W.P.No.9824 of 1992 and 9601 of 1992 praying for compensation and production of the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer. Both the writ petitions are pending for disposal. One of the main witnesses was not cited as a witness in S.C.No.15 of 1996 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Nagercoil viz., the Sub-Collector Mr. Athulya Mioral I. A.S., who conducted the Enquiry under Section 145 of Police Standing Orders. As the accused are the police officers and employees of the State Government they are in close relation and contact with the official witnesses. Moreover the Public Prosecutor in the instant case is having cordial working relationship with the Accused No. 6. The relation between the Accused No. 6, viz., the Sub-Inspettor of Police Mr.Chakkravarthy and the Public Prosecutor was very cordial. The 2nd Respondent as Sub-Inspector of Police assisted the Public Prosecutor while discharging his duty as Sub-Inspector of Police in the Department of Vigilance and Anti-corruption and in other Criminal Cases. Some of the Defence witnesses are also included in the list of witnesses are also included in the list of witnesses in the complaint filed by the 1st Respondent. The Petitioner entertained reasonable apprehension that the trial may not be conducted in a fair and reasonable manner because of the cordial working relationship between the Public Prosecutor and the accused No.6 in S.C.No.15 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. If the same Public Prosecutor continued to appear and conduct the prosecution case, it may amount to the abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to meet the ends of justice this Court may direct the Government of Tamil Nadu to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the prosecution case in S.C.No.15 of 1996 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge at Nagercoil. The petitioner is left with no other alternative and effective remedy than to come before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

(3.) None of the allegations in the petitioner's affidavit were denied by any one of the Respondents herein by filing a counter statement.