J RAMBABU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the accused No.l in Sessions Case No.74 of 1988, Additional Sessions Court, Eluru, West Godavari District questioning the entrustment of the said case to the 2nd respondent - Assistant Public Prosecutor, for conducting the prosecution.

(2.) The regular Additional Public Prosecutor, Eluru appears to have expressed his difficulty in conducting the prosecution in the case and the question arose as to who should be entrusted with the task. Ultimately, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.60 (Law) dated 3-3-1988 "entrusting" the case to the 2nd respondent, who does not belong to West Godavari District, but who is an Assistant Public Prosecutor practising at Vishakapatnam. The petitioner states that when Eluru or West Godavari District has a large Bar with several seniors practising on the criminal side and when, even otherwise, there are ever so many criminal lawyers in the neighbouring districts and elsewhere in the State, the selection of an Assistant Public Prosecutor and particularly of the 2nd respondent was not justified. It is argued that the Public Prosecutor in the District Courts has a separate status in the rules relating to appointment of Law Officers and an Assistant Public Prosecutor cannot be appointed. It is submitted that the provisions of Rule 56 of the A.P. Law Officers (Recruitment & Conditions of Service and Remuneration) is not attracted to the facts of the case. It is also submitted that the appointment of the 2nd respondent is not bona fide. The above said aspects were urged by Sri E.Ella Reddi for the petitioner, during the arguments.

(3.) The State has filed a counter-affidavit justifying the appointment. The learned Additional Advocate-General has submitted during the course of arguments that Rule 56 of the Rules is applicable or alternately Rule 8-E of the Rules. It is also stated that in any event, the appointment can be justified under S.24(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. According to him, the fact that a wrong provision has been quoted in the impugned order makes no difference, and he also points out that throughout the file, shows that action was intended not for 'entrustment' of a case as per Rule 56 of the A.P. Law Officers (RCR) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter called the Law Officers's Rules 1967) but for 'appointment' of a Special Public Prosecutor under S.24(8) Cr.P.C. and that the reference to the said rules is wrong and the power of the Government can be traced to S.24(8), Cr.P.C.