PARAMJIT SINGH SADANA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE these two writ petitions filed by the accused in S. C. No. 218 of 2007 on the file metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad, assail the orders issued in G. O. Rt. No. 1239, dated 03. 08. 2007 by respondent no. 1 -Government of Andhra Pradesh under section 24 (8) of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code')appointing Sri. P. Satya Murthy, advocate, as a "special Public Prosecutor" for conducting prosecution in the said sessions Case, as being illegal and arbitrary, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

(2.) THE facts that gave rise to the filing of these two writ petitions are - At the instance of one Smt. Reena Sadna (hereinafter called as the 'de facto complainant') a case in Crime No. 369 of 2006 on the file of the Police Station, Punjagutta, under sections 302 and 379 I. P. C. was registered. In the said complaint, the complainant alleged that her husband Sri Jasbir Singh was murdered on the intervening night of 27/28. 04. 2006, and she suspected her servants namely A2 to A5, who are Nepalies, to be the culprits. During the course of investigation, she gave a statement that she suspected that the brother of the deceased (petitioner in W. P. No. 21851 of 2007) to be the main conspirator for the murder in view of existence of property disputes between them.

(3.) WHILE so, basing on the confessional statements, said to have been made by A1 and his Car Driver A6, the petitioner in W. P. No. 26699 of 2007 was arrayed as accused no. 7 in the sessions case on the ground that he facilitated A2 to A5 to flee away from hyderabad, and provided them with money on the instructions of A1. Later, A6 having been arrested and remanded in judicial custody. After completing the investigation, the police laid the charge sheet in the month of October, 2006. Thereafter, the matter was committed to the Metropolitan Sessions court, Hyderabad. While the case was pending, the de facto complainant made a representation to the Government for appointing a private Advocate as Special public Prosecutor in the place of the existing public Prosecutor to conduct trial in S. C. No. 218 of 2007. Basing on the said representation, the Government issued the impugned G. O. appointing Sri. P. Satya murthy, Advocate, as the Special Public Prosecutor. DEFENCE OFTHE RESPONDENTS