DODDA BRAHMANANDAM Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition raises the question as to the duties of a public Prosecutor and also a question as to the locus standi of an accused to object to the appointment of a particular person as Special Public Prosecutor under Section 24(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, on the ground of reasonable apprehension of bias on the lattor's part.

(2.) The petitioner, Dodda Brahmanandam, is the accused standing trial in Sessions Case No. 92/1983 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge Addanki, Prakasham District. He is questioning the appointment of the 2nd respondent herein, Sri M Ramaiah Choudary, Advocate, Chirala as a Special Public Prosecutor, under section 24(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to conduct prosecution in P R C No. 2/82 pending before the Munsif Magistrate, Addanki, Prakasham District. The defacto complainant who is the petitioner's wife is now impleadedas the 3rd respondent in the writ petition.

(3.) It is necessary to state the following facts: The petitioner and the 3rd respondent were married on 17-5-1973 On 25-11-1981 the 3rd respondent's father gave a report alleging that his son in-law (the writ petitioner) and the writ petitioner's mother beat his daughter (3rd respondent) and tried to kill her (3rd respondent) on 22-11-1981 The local police filed a charge sheet in Crime No. 84/81. The matter was taken up as P R C No 2/82 by the Munsif Magistrate, Addanki- It is the petitioner's case that as that stage the 2nd respondent Sri M. Ramaiah Choudary, Advocate of Chirala attempted to get himself appointed as Special Public Prosecutor and that on 13-11-1981 'the 3rd respondent submitted a representation to the Government to appoint the 2nd respondent as Special Public Prosecutor on the plea that the Assistant Public Prosecutor was not favourably inclined towards her. There upon, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Director General of Police, Hyderabad on 10-12-81 sitting that the complainant viz, his father-in-law, is a very powerful man in the village of Yenamadala, that Sri M Ramaiah Choudary, Advocate (2nd respondent) who Is also from the village is a close friend of the petitioner's father-in-law, that with the assistance of the said advocate the 3rd respondent was taken to Chirala Hosppitat instead of Chilakaluripeta hospital which is nearer that a certificate was obtained regarding some alleged injury on the neck of the 3rd respondent, and that lot of publicity was given in the local news papers about the alleged incident dated 22-11-1981. He also further stated that his father-in-law gave a false report three days after the alleged incident to the police only with a view to humiliate the petitioner and his family. He also referred to certain disputes in the panchayat elections, which, according to him, were the cause for the complaint.