PRADEEP SAKHARAM RAUT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri. Sirpurkar, advocate for applicant and Shri. Ahirkar, A. P. P. for State. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. This is an application under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, in which the applicant is seeking the relief of directing "change of Public Prosecutor" in Sessions Case no. 20/2002 pending on the file of 3rd Adhoc additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, on the ground that he is related to one of the prosecution witness and had counselled in the matrimonial dispute of the deceased and the accused has interest in the prosecution.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this application, which are necessary for the disposal of this matter may be stated thus. The applicant is facing trial in Sessions Trial No. 20/2002 before the Court of Ad-hoc Additional Sessions judge, Chandrapur. It is a case for the offence punishable under section 306 of I. P. C. The said case is fixed for evidence. Four witnesses have been already examined. The case at the time of filing of the application was fixed for recording the evidence of other witnesses. It is claimed that earlier A. P. P. Shri. Munghate was appearing on the side of the prosecution in this case. However, after some evidence was recorded, the present Public Prosecutor Shri. Ambatkar took charge of the said case as prosecutor (He being government Pleader and Public Prosecutor chandrapur). It is alleged that Shri. Ambatkar and the complainant as well as some of the prosecution witnesses are known to each other, in fact; one of them is relative of him. When the matrimonial dispute was going on between the deceased and the accused; Shri. Ambatkar had councelled the parties. It is contended that Shri. Ambatkar P. P. is having extra interest in the litigation and prosecution of the accused and therefore, the applicant apprehended that he would not get fair justice at this hands as Public prosecutor Shri. Ambatkar would not be acting in fair manner. According to the applicant, he has preferred an application asking the court directing the Public Prosecutor to recuse himself from the matter and directing the said matter to be conducted by another Public Prosecutor.

(3.) This application he had filed as per exhibit 52. In the application he has specifically contended that earlier; Shri. Munghate, A. P. P. was conducting the case, now Shri. Ambatkar has taken charge of the said case. He has relation with complainant so also he known the witnesses of the prosecution very well and therefore, he apprehends that he would not get fair justice in the matter. Therefore, he claimed that another public Prosecutor should be directed to conduct the matter. He specifically mentioned in the application that understanding was given to his wife at the house of Makde Madam by Shri. Ambatkar.