KATARI PRAVEEN Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare G.O.Rt.No.1070 Home (Courts.A) Department dated 18.12.2019 (for short 'G.O.Rt.No.1070 dated 18.12.2019') issued by the first respondent as illegal, arbitrary and against principles of natural justice and consequently permit the cadre Public Prosecutor Grade-II appointed through G.O.Rt.No.977 Home (Courts.A) Department dated 15.11.2019 (for short 'G.O.Rt.No.977 dated 15.11.2019') to conduct prosecution of S.C.No.110 of 2016 pending on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is the son of Smt. Katari Anuradha (Deceased No.1) and Katari Mohan (Deceased No.2), who were murdered on 17.11.2015 in the office of Municipal Corporation Chittoor. Crime No.110 of 2016 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 326 of Indian Penal Code and Arms Act. At that time, mother of the petitioner was Chairperson of the Municipal Corporation. The petitioner's parents were shot dead and brutally killed in the office. After investigation, the inspector of police filed charge sheet and inturn the jurisdictional magistrate committed the case to sessions division and the same was registered as S.C.No.110 of 2016 pending on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor. The petitioner is a victim within the definition of 'victim' under Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C.

(3.) It is specifically contended that, when the sessions case was coming for enquiry for framing the charges, there was no regular public prosecutor attached to the Sessions Court. The first respondent through G.O.Rt.No.562 dated 06.07.2017 appointed Sri G. Raja Ram, advocate and former Additional Public Prosecutor as Special Public Prosecutor to conduct prosecution of the Sessions Case. Thoti Manjunath who was Accused No.4 in Sessions case filed W.P.No.25586 of 2018 and W.P.No.42523 of 2018 questioning the appointment of Special Public Prosecutor on the ground that the Special Public Prosecutor in earlier occasion appeared for his father as a defense counsel in a criminal case, on the ground of alleged bias. This Court vide interim order dated 19.11.2018 stayed the order of appointment.