SURAPANENI RAM PRASAD Vs. V RAMESH CHANDRA BAU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order of a learned single Judge in W.P. No. 6353 of 1996 quashing the Government Order and setting aside the appointment of the 3rd respondent-appellant as Additional Public Prosecutor (for short A.P.P.) in the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, this writ appeal is brought under Clause 15 of Letters Patent.

(2.) The following few facts have to be stated for the disposal of this appeal : The term of the petitioner-1st respondent expired on 20-8-1994 as A.P.P. to the Court of the Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. The appointment to the post of the A.P.P. is required to be made in accordance with Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code'). In the panel sent by the District Magistrate in August, 1994, the Government, the 2nd respondent herein, the petitioner-1st respondent figured at Sl. No. 2. The panel was not acted upon. Hence, a fresh panel was called for. Accordingly, a fresh panel was sent and in the said panel the 3rd respondent-appellant was chosen and appointed as A.P.P., which was assailed in the writ petition. Accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-1st respondent that Section 24 of the Code has not been complied with, in as much as the panel, out of which the appellant was chosen, was sent by the District Magistrate without consulting the Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada being a metropolitan area but only consulting the District Judge, Krishna, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of appointment of the 3rd respondent-appellant.

(3.) The learned senior counsel Sri E. Manohar appearing for the appellant, contends that the Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, was not the concerned Judge to be consulted in the appointment of A.P.P., but only the District & Sessions Judge, Krishna, is the concerned Judge and that Section 7 of the Code deals with territorial division and the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Code should be confined only to such territorial divisions and it cannot be read into sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Code and therefore the learned single Judge was not right in setting aside the appointment of the appellant. It was mainly contended by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that the provisions of Section 24 have not been complied with and therefore the appointment of the appellant is wholly illegal and it was rightly set aside.