TIKAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-accused, facing trial for offences under Sections 302, 201 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act of 1989/the Act hereafter) has submitted this writ petition questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 16.06.2005 (Annex.4) issued by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Pali appointing the respondent No.3 Shri Mahesh Bora, Advocate to conduct the case on behalf of the State at the request of the complainant with reference to Rule 4(5) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (the Rules of 1995/the Rules hereafter).

(2.) The petitioner Tikam Singh has been challaned on 17.05.2005 for the offences aforesaid and he contends that the complainant has foisted a frivolous case on account of political enmity and is motivated by political opponents of his father. The complainant-respondent Nos.4 and 5 submitted an application (Annex.2) before the Collector-cum- District Magistrate, Pali for appointing a counsel for pleading the case on their behalf as per Rule 4(5) of the Rules of 1995. The application was accompanied by the consent stated by Shri Mahesh Bora (Annex.3) and the Collector, acting on the application, appointed Shri Bora to plead the case on behalf of the State by the impugned order dated 16.06.2005 (Annex.4).

(3.) Before the Special Court, to whom the matter was committed on 22.07.2005, the petitioner moved an application (Annex.1) on 22.09.2005 and contended that Shri Bora, Advocate is regularly conducting the case on behalf of the complainants and pleaded their case before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran but deliberately did not file Vakalatnama. The petitioner contended while referring to the Act and the Rules that Shri Bora having been a counsel for the complainants could not have been engaged as a Public Prosecutor for this case. However, the Special court turned down such objection of the petitioner by the order dated 30.09.2005(Annex.5) with the observations that whether Shri Bora's appointment was regular or not, it could not be a matter of dispute nor that court was competent to pass any order on such dispute.