MALLIKARJUNA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who were accused in Sessions Case No. 10 of 1975 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of quo wananto against respondents 1, 2 and 3, who have been appointed as Special Public Prosecutors for prosecuting the petitioners in the said sessions case.

(2.) According to the petitioners, section 24 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, lays down certain qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a Special Public Prosecutor and the respondents do not possess the requisite qualifications prescribed by the said provision. It is on that ground that they challenge the appointments of the respondents.

(3.) The 1st respondent, Sri K.V.L. Narasimha Rao, was enrolled as a First Grade Pleader in October, 1947 under the Pleaders Act (VI of 1318 Fasli). He practised until his appointment as a District Munsif in the then Hyderabad Judicial Service on 23rd September,1949. He retired as a District Judge on 29th November, 1973. He got his name entered on the rolls of the Advocates in January, 1974 under the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961. The Government appointed him as a Special Public Prosecutor by G.O. Ms. No. 1392, Home (Courts-C) Department, dated 4th October, 1975. In so appointing him as Special Public Prosecutor, the Government exercised the power conferred upon it under sub-section (6) of section 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. He was appointed as Special Public Prosecutor to conduct prosecution in the present sessions case, which was then at a preliminary enquiry stage.