ANNOP Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is assailing the validity of Order dated 22-6-2005. By the said order, State Government exercising powers conferred by Section 24(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 appointed respondent No. 2 as Special Public Prosecutor to conduct S.T. No. 156/2005 pending in the Court of First ASJ, Mhow.

(2.) Petitioner is an accused of having committed alleged offences punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 307/149. According to prosecution story, incident took place on 7-12-2004 leading to murder of Gaya Prasad and injuries to Sohan and Vijay. Vijay lodged the FIR setting the police machinery in motion and a criminal case was registered at Crime No. 442/04 at P. S. Kishanganj. After investigation, Police filed the charge-sheet against petitioner and other co-accused persons. That is how petitioner is arraigned before the Court below as one of the accused in the Sessions Trial. By order dated 22-6-2005, respondent No. 2 is appointed as Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the said Sessions Trial. On 4-8- 2005 an application was made before the learned ASJ, challenging appointment of respondent No. 2 as Special Public Prosecutor. Said application was rejected vide Order dated 5-8-2005 therefore present writ, petition under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution to challenge the order impugned.

(3.) At the time of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that respondent No. 1 passed the order Impugned mechanically without any application of mind. It was contended that respondent No. 2 in the past, represented complainant in criminal matters, therefore it is unexpected that he would act fairly. Learned counsel for petitioner voiced an apprehension that respondent No. 2 in his role as Special Public Prosecutor may align himself with complainant, therefore he is biased and instead of prosecuting will act as prosecutor with the sole object to secure conviction of accused persons. Thus, according to learned counsel for petitioner, the order impugned is liable to be quashed and the writ petition deserves to be allowed.