THARALA VEERABHADRAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE six petitioners in this Writ Petition are accused of causing the death of one Bonagani Komuraiah of Korivi Village in Warangal District and consequently, they are facing prosecution launched by the State for the said offence. THEy are now challenging the validity of the orders passed by the State Government, through their G.O.Rt.No.1447 Law (L.A.andJ) Department, dated 13.10.1999, appointing Sri Pamulaparthy Sadasiva Rao, Advocate, Hanamkonda, as Special Public Prosecutor to conduct prosecution in Sessions Case No. 299 of 1998 arising out of Crime No. 34 of 1998 on the file of the Police Station Mahabubabad, Warangal District. THEse orders have been passed by the State, in exercise of the power available to it under sub-section (8) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. THE main thrust of challenge against these orders is that the petitioners apprehend that the Special Public Prosecutor may not conduct the criminal case impartially, inasmuch as he has come to be appointed by the State after entertaining a representation submitted by the wife of the deceased. Hence, the Special Public Prosecutor may get carried away and consequently, may not conduct the prosecution in a just and fair manner as a true representative of the State. Further, the petitioners point out that the District Collector and Magistrate, Warangal has been initially approached for appointing Sri P. Sadasiva Rao as the Special Public Prosecutor. THE District Magistrate, without even bothering to know as to whether he has the power and competence to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor, passed orders through his proceedings, dated 15.06.1999 appointing Sri P. Sadasiva Rao, Advocate, Hanamkonda as the Special Public Prosecutor. That was called in question by these very writ petitioners by instituting Writ Petition No. 12599 of 1999. That Writ Petition was considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court and by an order dated 24.06.1999, the Writ Petition was allowed and the order passed by the District Collector and Magistrate, Warangal, appointing Sri P. Sadasiva Rao as a Special Public Prosecutor, was quashed, as the District Collector and Magistrate lacked power to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor. THEreafter, the wife of the deceased approached the State Government and the State Government acceded to her request and appointed Sri P. Sadasiva Rao as a Special Public Prosecutor through the impugned G.O.Rt.No.1447, dated 13.10.1999.

(2.) AS was already noticed supra, the writ petitioners are apprehensive of the impartiality and fairness on the part of the Special Public Prosecutor now appointed to conduct the Sessions Case. It should also be said that the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners is fair enough to submit that Sri P. Sadasiva Rao, Advocate at Hanamkonda enjoys a clean image and reputation and that he is fairly familiar with the role and duties of a Public Prosecutor. Therefore, the entire question boils down to the power and competence of the State Government to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor.

(3.) HOWEVER, to my mind, this contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners does not get attracted to a situation where the State Government appoints a Special Public Prosecutor for conducting trial of a particular case or a class of cases. The contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners is essentially based upon the mandatory requirements enshrined in sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 24 of the Code. HOWEVER, sub-section (8) thereof confers power on the State to appoint, for the purpose of any case or class of cases, any person, who has been in practice as an Advocate for not less than ten years, as a Special Public Prosecutor. This is a special feature and provision contained in the Code. Sub-section (8) reads as follows: