SURAPANENI RAM PRASAD Vs. GOVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a practising advocate of Vijayawada, questions in this writ petition the appointment of the 5th respondent, who is also an advocate of Vijayawada Bar, as Additional Public Prosecutor for the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, by the Government in G.O. Rt, No.37, Home (Courts-C) Department, dated 6-1-1997.

(2.) This case has had a chequered history. By G.O. Ms. No. 103, dated 29-2-1996 the petitioner was appointed as Additional Public Prosecutor for the said Court. It was challenged by one Ramesh Chandra Babu in WP No.6353 of 1996. The writ petition was allowed by a learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 18-9-1996 on the ground that Section 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code has not been complied with inasmuch as the pane was sent by the District Magistrate without consulting the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, but only consulting the District Judge, Krishna. The said order was confirmed in WA No. 1271 of 1996 by judgment dated 6-12-1996 holding that a combined reading of Sections 7 and 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code leaves no doubt to hold that for any Metropolitan area, the Metropolitan Sessions Judge is the Judge that is to be consulted under subsection (4) of Section 24 of the Code. While disposing of the writ appeal, the Division Bench also noted that Section 20 of the Code empowers the State Government to appoint Executive Magistrate in every district and in every Metropolitan area and to appoint one of them as District Magistrate. Sub-section (2) of Section 20 says that the State Government may appoint any Executive Magistrate as Additional District Magistrate and such Magistrate shall have such of the powers of the District Magistrate under this Code as are directed by the State Government. After referring to the said provisions, the Division Bench observed as follows:

(3.) It appears that even before the said order of the Division Bench was communicated, as per the order, of the learned single Judge dated 18-9-1996, the State Government called for a fresh panel of names from the Collector and District Magistrate, Krishna who submitted a fresh panel containing three names on 13-12-1996. The said panel is stated to have been submitted after consultation with the III Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for ACB Cases, Vijayawada, who was incharge of the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge as the latter was on leave at that time and that the same was duly recommended by the District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam. At that stage, the petitioner filed WA No. 1271 of 1996 contending that the Collector and District Magistrate has no jurisdiction to send the panel of advocates for appointment of Additional Public Prosecutor for Metropolitan Courts in Vijayawada. Acting on the said panel sent by the Collector and District Magistrate, Krishna, the State Government issued orders in G.O. Rt. No.37, dated 6-1-1997, which is impugned in the present writ petition, appointing the 5th respondent herein as Additional Public Prosecutor for the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, for a period of three years from the date of taking charge of the post. According to the respondents, the appointment is actually made for the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada but, by mistake, in the order it is stated that the appointment is made for the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada and that is purely a typographical error as there are no two separate Courts but only one Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge.