NEMI CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Section 302 IPC alongwith some other sections which is pending for trial. It is his grievance that respondent No. 3 Mani Ram Sharma had appeared as an advocate on behalf of the informant/complainant-party against him and hence he should not have been appointed as a Public Prosecutor to conduct the trial. It has further been stated that at some point of time his appointment as a Public Prosecutor had been cancelled and thereafter he has been re-appointed as a Public Prosecutor in the same case. According to the accused-petitioner this action of the State is illegal and the respondent No. 3 should not be allowed to conduct the trial on behalf of the State.

(2.) MR. Jain has vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioner that respondent No. 3 the Public Prosecutor would not be acting fairly in the trial of the case pending against the petitioner and he has also relied upon certain authorities in order to emphasises that a Public Prosecutor is expected to be fair not only to the Court and the complainant, but he should also be fair to the accused.