LAWS(MPH)-1999-9-29

SHYAM RAMKISHAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M P

Decided On September 10, 1999
SHYAM RAMKISHAN SHARMA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 5-4-1999 (Annexure P-7) by which Shri Mahboob Ansari, Advocate has been appointed as Special Public Prosecutor under Section 24 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) to conduct Sessions Trial No. 38 of 1999 pending before VI Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal.

(2.) THE petitioners are facing prosecution under Sections 147, 333/149 and 395/397, Indian Penal Code on the charges that they have voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Shri I. D. Saxena, Excise Officer and for committing dacoity in respect of a Pistol belonging to Shri Pankaj Tiwari, Excise Sub-Inspector on 8-10-1998 while they were discharging their official duties. The Excise Officer is said to have been badly injured while he was apprehending the offenders engaged in the trade of illicit liquor. During the course of the trial Shri Mahboob Ansari, Advocate appeared on behalf of the complainant and filed an application under Section 301 (2) of the Code and he was permitted to act under the directions of the Public prosecutor by the trial Court. Thereafter by the impugned order dated 5-4-1999 Shri Mahboob Ansari has been appointed as Special Public Prosecutor. The order shows that the Special Public Prosecutor has been appointed keeping in view the facts of the case and the gravity of the charges. The case was found to be of special nature. izk. k?kkrd geys dh xahkhj ?kvuk gksus ds dkj. kfo'ks"k ifjflfkfr dk gsa By this order it was also directed that payment of professional fee to Shri Mahboob Ansari shall be made from the State ex-chequer.

(3.) THE petitioners' case is that the Public Prosecutor should be an independent person and in this case Shri Ansari having already been engaged by the complainant cannot be expected to act independently. He cannot be fair in presentation of the prosecution case and it would be prejudicial to the interest of the accused.