B VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, in every district, is designated to try the cases under the A.P. Protection of Depositors and Financial Establishments Act 1959 (for short the Act). THE petitioner was appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor for the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, under sub-section (8) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the Code), by the 1st respondent through its orders, in G.O.Rt.No.992, Law Department, dated 12.06.2007. On expiry of the term of the petitioner, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the Court of III Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, was placed in-charge of the cases, that were dealt with by the petitioner. In modification of that arrangement, the District Collector issued proceedings, dated 07.05.2009, continuing the petitioner as such till new appointment is made.

(2.) The 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.40, Law Department, dated 07.01.2010, appointing the 2nd respondent, as the Special Public Prosecutor, for the said Court. THE petitioner challenges the same, on several grounds. It is pleaded that the petitioner was chosen to deal with a particular category of cases and that for the past two years, he became acquainted and has handled them to a substantial extent. According to him, the appointment of the 2nd respondent would be detrimental to the interests of the State. It is also urged that serious procedural irregularities have taken place in the appointment of the 2nd respondent.

(3.) Learned Government Pleader for Home and Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, submit that the mere fact that a panel was forwarded by the District Judge, even for appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor does not invalidate the exercise. According to them, the stand of the petitioner is not only vague but is self-contradictory.