MODUGULA MALLIKARJUNA REDDY Vs. GOVERMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri T. Bal Reddy the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, and the learned Government Pleader for Law and Legislative Affairs, and Sri K.G. Kannabhiram, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents.

(2.) . The petitioners herein who are the accused Nos. 6 and 93 respectively, filed this Writ Petition, inter alia, seeking for Writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned proceedings in G.O. Rt. No. 1212 Law (LA. and J. Courts A.2) Department dated 23-8-2000, issued by the 1st respondent herein, appointing the respondent No. 4 herein as a Special Public Prosecutor and the respondent No. 5 as his assistant to conduct the prosecution in S.C. No. 36/1993 on the file of the Special Sessions Court for Trial of Cases, Guntur, under S.Cs. & S.Ts. (POA) Act, 1989, as illegal and arbitrary.

(3.) . The case of the petitioners in brief is that in respect of an incident occurred on 6-8-1991 at Tsundur village, Guntur District, a charge sheet has been filed against 129 accused for the alleged offence under Sections 148, 324, 307, 302, 201 and 120-B read with 34 I.P.C. and Section 3 of the S.Cs. & S.Ts. (POA) Act, 1989, (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), wherein the petitioners were shown as accused Nos. 6 and 93. The said case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the case has undergone checkered events. It was submitted that the case was pending in the Court of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, which is a designated Court as Special Judge for trial of cases under the said Act and on instructions a Camp Court was to be held at Tsundur, by reviewing the earlier orders, much against the interests of the accused. It was pointed out that the respondent No. 4 herein, who is a practising advocate at Guntur and who is a member of the A.P.P.U.C.L.C. and who has been propagating the naxalism prevailed upon the local villagers to make a representation before the Government for appointing him as a Special Public Prosecutor in the said case. It is further urged that he has been holding meetings at Ambedkar Nagar at Tsundur and insisting upon for his appointment as a Special Public Prosecutor and thus he is taking personal interest and tutoring the witnesses to depose against the accused. Having fallen a prey to the advice, the Government obtained a report from the Collector and issued impugned proceedings appointing the 4th respondent as Special Public Prosecutor and the 5th respondent to assist him under the purported exercise of power under Section 24(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (hereinafter referred to as the Code), which according to the petitioners is totally without jurisdiction, arbitrary and illegal. It is the case of the petitioners that the Public Prosecutor has already been appointed to conduct the cases on behalf of the prosecution in the said Special Court and who is very much competent and efficient, as against the 4th respondent. Further, there exists about eight Public Prosecutors, working in the various Courts at Guntur, whose claim has not been considered. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 do not possess any experience or merits for being considered for such appointment. Therefore, in the circumstances, neither of the 4th and 5th respondents can be expected to be fair and impartial in conducting the prosecution cases, hence, the very selection and choice of their own advocates as Public Prosecutor and assistant is totally against the law. Having come to know of the appointment lately, the petitioners have filed comprehensive representations on 3-2-2004 and 8-6-2004 raising objections before the respondent No. 1 and the same are still pending. Hence, the Writ Petition.