JUDGMENT This writ petition is moved with notice to the respondents and Mr. Bhattacharya has entered appearance for the respondent No.2 and Mr. Mukherjee has entered appearance on behalf of the added respondent No.8, Prabhat Chandra Ghose. In this writ petition, the order of appointment of the respondent No.4, Birendra Nath Bose as Public Prosecutor in a sessions trial in the Court of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, 24-Parganas in the case of State v. Dilip Ghose is under challenge. The impugned order of appointment is Annexure 'A' to the writ petition. It appears that by an order dated 28th July, 1980, the Governor was pleased to appoint Shri Birendra Nath Bose as a Special Public Prosecutor under section 24(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to conduct the prosecution in the said sessions trial on usual terms. It was also stated in the said order that the fees of the lawyers would be borne by the complainant. 2. It is contended by the petitioner that over an incident concerning Jadavpur P. S. Case No. 90 dated 26th January, 1977, a charge sheet was submitted by the police against the accused petitioners, Dilip Ghosh and others and the case was ultimately transferred to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Alipore. Upon an application being made by the State asking permission to withdraw the case against the accused persons, the learned Judicial Magistrate was pleased to accord such permission and the case was withdrawn by the State and the accused petitioners were thereafter discharged from the case. It appears that the father of the deceased victim, Gopinath Ghose, filed a revisional application before this Court, being Criminal Revision Case No. 688 of 1978 challenging the legality and/or validity of the order granting permission to withdraw the prosecution. The said criminal revision case was heard by a Division Bench of this Court but the said revisional application was dismissed but it was, inter alia, observed by their Lordships in the judgment passed in the said criminal revisional proceeding that the de facto complainant had an alternative remedy and if he would choose, he could file a petition of complainant before a competent Court. It appears that thereafter the father of the said deceased Gopinath Ghose filed a petition of complaint before the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, and the accused petitioners were summoned to stand their trial for offences under sections 147, 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the said complaint case was subsequently transferred to the Fourth Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Alipore. In the said complaint case, Shri Birendra Nath Bose, who has been appointed a Special Public Prosecutor by the impugned order appeared for the complainant at the cost of the complainant and conducted the said complaint case on behalf of complainant. The learned Fourth Judicial Magistrate ultimately committed the case to the Court of Sessions whereupon the Sessions Trial Case No. 42(6)/1980 of the First Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alipore, has been started. 3. The petitioners contend that when the said case was committed to the Court of Sessions, the said learned Advocate, Shri Birendra Nath Bose and Shri Biraj Mohan Chaklanabis appeared for the de facto complainant and wanted to make some submissions before the learned Sessions Judge but the learned Sessions Judge had observed that the said Advocates had been engaged by the de facto complainant and as such they had no locus standi. It appears that one Shri Rabin Brahma appeared as a Prosecutor in the said case and the said Shri Brahma was a member in the panel of the Government Prosecutors. The petitioners contend that the de facto complainant, namely, the father of the victim thereafter made an application to the Government of West Bengal for appointing Shri Birendra Nath Bose, Advocate, as a Special Public Prosecutor under section 24(6) of the Cr. P. C. to conduct the prosecution in the said sessions trial and by the impugned order the Governor was pleased to appoint said Shri Bose as a Special Public Prosecutor. It also appears from the said Memorandum that Shri Biraj Mohan Chaklanabis and Shri Jyotirmoy Chakrabarty, two other learned Advocates who are respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the instant writ petition were also engaged as Counsel to assist said Shri Bose and it was directed that, the costs of the said lawyers would be borne by the complainant. 4. The learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioners submits that Mr. Bose is otherwise competent to be appointed as a Public Prosecutor under section 24(8) of the Cr. 4. The learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioners submits that Mr. Bose is otherwise competent to be appointed as a Public Prosecutor under section 24(8) of the Cr. P. C. but in the facts and circumstances of the case, the State Government should not have appointed him as a Special Public Prosecutor in the instant sessions trial when the said Shri Bose had, as a matter of fact, appeared for the de facto complainant against the petitioners on earlier occasions and even in the instant sessions trial, he wanted to make submissions on behalf of the complainant against the accused petitioners but the learned Sessions Judge did not allow him to make submissions on the ground that the de facto complainant had no locus standi. 5. Mr. Bagchi, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Public Prosecutor must be actively associated in the matter of prosecution and the independence of the Public, Prosecutor is essentially necessary for a fair trial. In this connection, Mr. Bagchi refers to a Bench decision of this Court made in the case of (1) The Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Prafulla Majhi & Anr., reported in 1977(1) CLJ page 158. The importance of the post of Public Prosecutor and the duties to be performed by a Public Prosecutor were taken into consideration by this Court in the said decision and it was held by this Court that the Public Prosecutor would not act as a mechanical agent to carry out the direction of the State Government in presenting an appeal or conducting a prosecution. The recommendation of the Law Commission of India in its report regarding judicial administration was referred to in the said decision and it was noted that the Law Commission also emphasised the need to ensure a degree of detachment for the Prosecutor from the prosecuting police authorities. The Law Commission recommended that the prosecuting agency should be completely separated from the police department and the prosecution should be left in charge of an independent authority like 'Director of Prosecution'. A decision of this Court made in the case of (2) Ram Ranjan v. The Emperor, reported in ILR 42 Calcutta page 422 was also referred to in the said decision. A decision of this Court made in the case of (2) Ram Ranjan v. The Emperor, reported in ILR 42 Calcutta page 422 was also referred to in the said decision. It was observed in the decision of Ram Ranjan's case that "the purpose of a criminal trial is not to support at all costs a theory but to investigate the offence and to determine the fault or innocence of the accused and the duty of a Public Prosecutor is to represent not the police but the Crown and his duty should be discharged by him fairly and fearlessly and with full sense of responsibility that attaches to his position." A decision of the Supreme Court made in the case of (3) State of Bihar v. Ram Naresh, reported in the AIR 1957 SC page 389 was also referred to in the said decision in Prafulla Majhi's case (supra). The Supreme Court had observed in Ram Naresh’s case that "in the context it is right to remember that the Public Prosecutor is in a larger sense also an officer of the Court and that he is bound to assist the Court with his fairly considered views and the Court is entitled to have the benefit of the fair exercise of his function." Another decision of this Court made in the case of (4) Raj Kishore Rabidas v. The State, reported in AIR 1969 Calcutta page 321 was also relied on in Prafulla Majhi's case. It was observed by this Court in Raj Kishore's case that "it would be, therefore, apposite to say that a Public Prosecutor for the State is not such a mouth-piece for his client, the State to say what it wants or is a tool to de what the State directs. He owes allegiance to higher cause. He must not consciously mis-state the facts nor knowingly conceal truth. Despite his undaunted duty to his client, the State, he must sometimes disregard his client's most specific instructions if they conflict with his duty to the Court to be fair, independent and unbiased in his views. As an Advocate for the State, he may be ranked as a Minister of Justice equally with the Judge." Mr. Bagchi, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that Mr. As an Advocate for the State, he may be ranked as a Minister of Justice equally with the Judge." Mr. Bagchi, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that Mr. Bose having accepted the brief on behalf of the de facto complainant and having already appeared for the de facto complainant to champion the cause of the de facto complainant is likely to act with a closed and biased mind against the accused. In the circumstances, he submits that the said Counsel should not have been appointed by the State and Mr. Bose should not have appeared as a Public Prosecutor. He submits that the impugned order of appointment of Shri Bose and other Counsel to assist him has become all the more vulnerable because the costs of such Counsel are to be borne by the de facto complainant. Mr. Bagchi, submits that Mr. Bose and his Assistants may rise to the occasion and may act impartially and fairly in the matter of prosecution but if there is any chance of their being biased against the accused petitioners, the State should not have appointed them in the manner it has been done. 6. The learned Counsel for the State in his fairness has also pointed out that Public Prosecutor must be fair and unbiased. 7. Mr. Mukherjee, the learned Counsel appearing for the added respondent has submitted that the appointment of Mr. Bose as a Special Public Prosecutor under section 24(8), Cr. P. C. is not per se bad but the direction that his fees and the fees of his Assistants should be borne by the de facto complainant may not be proper. 8. Considering the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, I am clearly of opinion that the impugned order is not proper and Mr. Bose should not have been appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor in the facts and circumstances of the case. The high office of the Public Prosecutor, his detachment for any particular cause and his concern for proper justice cannot be underestimated. It is not material if, in fact, a Public Prosecutor has acted with bias but care and caution should be taken to ensure that there may not be any occasion for a Public Prosecutor acting with any bias or any passion to champion the cause of any party. It is not material if, in fact, a Public Prosecutor has acted with bias but care and caution should be taken to ensure that there may not be any occasion for a Public Prosecutor acting with any bias or any passion to champion the cause of any party. In the facts of the case, the State Government should not have engaged Mr. Bose and his Assistants who had appeared for the complainant in support of the case of the complainant against the accused petitioners and it was also not proper to direct that a Public Prosecutor's costs should be borne out by an interested party. 9. In the circumstances, the impugned order is quashed and the State Government is directed to appoint Public Prosecutor for the said sessions trial under section 24(6), Cr. P. C. as early as possible. The Civil Order is disposed of accordingly but there will be no order as to costs.