ORDER D.M. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. The petitioner is facing sessions trial for offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The complainant/respondent no. 5 had engaged respondent no. 4 Shri R.N. Sen, Advocate, Satna as counsel to assist the prosecution and was permitted to do so under Section 301 (2) of the Cr.P.C. During the course of trial, the State Government by impugned order dated 23rd December 1997 has appointed Shri R.N. Sen as Special Public Prosecutor under Section 24 (8) of the Cr.P.C. 3. Shri Manish Datt, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the State Government has not duly exercised its power of appointment of Special Public Prosecutor under Section 24 (2) of the Code. It is submitted that Shri R.N. Sen, Advocate has been engaged by the complainant. He appeared along with the Public Prosecutor to oppose the bail application. The counsel engaged by the complainant has been appointed as Sepcial Public Prosecutor on mere asking. The Collector/District Magistrate in recommending his appointment did not state any cogent reasons. The State Government has also not shown any strong justification for appointing Shri R.N. Sen, Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor when the prosecutor already appointed by the State is fully competent to conduct the trial. 4. In assailing the appointment of special Public Prosecutor, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mukul Dalai and ors. V. Union of India and others [ (1998) 3 SCC 144] which has been relied by the Division Bench of this Court in Sunil Kumar V. State of M.P. & Ors. (1992 MPU 772) and a Single Bench decision of this Court in Rajendra Nigam V. State of M.P. (1998 Cri. L.J. 998). Reference is also made to a Single Bench decision os U.L. Bhat, J. (as he then was) in Moosa Abdul Rahiman V. State of Kerala (1982 Cri.L.J. 2085 -Kerala High Court). 5. I have also heard Shri P.D. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the State, and Shri R.N. Rai, Advocate, appearing for Shri R.N. Sen, Advocate, respondent no. 4 and the complainant Subhash Agrawal, respondent no. 5. On behalf of the respondents it is submitted that this is a case relating to a heinous crime of committing dowry death of newly married girl. 4 and the complainant Subhash Agrawal, respondent no. 5. On behalf of the respondents it is submitted that this is a case relating to a heinous crime of committing dowry death of newly married girl. The accused persons belonged to a wealthy and influential family. The complainant expressed apprehension that the accused on the basis of their affluence and influence will some how make effort to secure acquittal in the criminal case. The complainant, therefore, is desirous of engaging a Special Public Prosecutor to see that the guilty are punished. 6. On behalf of the State, justifying the appointment of Shri R.N. Sen, Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor, it has been stated that the application of the complainant was considered in accordance with the guidelines in the Law Mannual. A report from the District Magistrate was called and on over-all consideration, and looking to the nature of the case, the government thought it proper to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor. Along with the return, the opinion of the District Magistrate has been annexed as Annexure-R/3 dated 29.10.1997. The District Magistrate in his recommendation has merely reproduced the version of the complainant that the accused persons are influential and wealthy. In his recommendation, the District Magistrate further states that the proposal of appointment of Shri R.N. Sen, Advocate would be in public interest and in the interest of justice. On behalf of the complainant, learned counsel appearing for him submitted that the regular Public Prosecutors are busy in several cases and it is, therefore, necessary that a Special Public Prosecutor be appointed to look after the present case which has created a sensation in the town as the newly married bride was done to death within a very short period of her marriage. On behalf of the complainant, the learned counsel submitted that the appointment of Special Prosecutor be sustained in the interest of justice as justice should not only be done but should appear to have been done. 7. The Code in empowering State Government to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor under Section 24 (8) has not given any guidelines for making such appointments. From the decisions of the Supreme Court followed by the High Court in the cases (supra), it is, however, settled that Special Public Prosecutor should not be appointed on mere asking of the complainant. 7. The Code in empowering State Government to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor under Section 24 (8) has not given any guidelines for making such appointments. From the decisions of the Supreme Court followed by the High Court in the cases (supra), it is, however, settled that Special Public Prosecutor should not be appointed on mere asking of the complainant. Such appointment, resulting in ouster of the regularly appointed Public Prosecutor creates feeling of distrust and thereby demoralises the Public Prosecutors as a class. It also in another way results in encouraging complainants to make efforts to secure conviction of the accused at all costs. The role of Public Prosecutor is different from the role of a counsel or Advocate engaged by a party. The Public Prosecutor has to place the evidence collected by the prosecution dispassionately and in disinterested manner to serve the larger interest of the community. He has not to prosecute the case with a view to achieve conviction of the accused at all cost. In his role as Public Prosecutor, he represents the State in administration of criminal justice, he appears for and on behalf of the whole society, because a crime is treated to be offence not against the individual but against the community as a whole in which the individual is merely a victim. No doubt, currently a serious thought is being given in legal circles and those associated with administration justice that there should be effective protection and participation of the victims of the crime in criminal trials. The Court has, however, to guard against a criminal trial being converted into an individual contest between the accused and the complainant (See: 1998 3 SCC 3 -the Article by Dr. Justice A.S. Anand of the Supreme Court (as he then was) under the title "VICTIMS OF CRIME -THE UNSEEN SIDE"). It is with these aspects in view that the Supreme Court as also other Courts have been examining the validity of appointment of Special Public Prosecutors on given facts and circumstances. Special Public Prosecutor can be appointed only for very special and strong reasons. Applying the above test to the case in hand, this Court finds that there is no cogent, strong and valid reason for appointing Shri R.N. Sen as Special Public Prosecutor who had earlier been engaged by and appearing for the complainant. Special Public Prosecutor can be appointed only for very special and strong reasons. Applying the above test to the case in hand, this Court finds that there is no cogent, strong and valid reason for appointing Shri R.N. Sen as Special Public Prosecutor who had earlier been engaged by and appearing for the complainant. The apprehension raised by the complainant that the accused party is wealthy and influential is not going to in any way influence either the witnesses or the trial Judge. It is also not the case of the State that the Public Prosecutor is in any manner handicapped in conducting the trial. The Court has already permitted Shri R.N. Sen, Advocate to assist the Public Prosecutor by permission granted under Sec. 301 (2) of the Code. The District Magistrate in his recommendation has not given any special reasons except to repeat whatever was stated by the complainant in his application. The Supreme Court in the case of Mukul Dalai (supra) has observed as follows - ......When an application for the services of a Special Public Prosecutor or an Assistant Public Prosecutor is made in a given case, the power would be vested in him to examine the facts and take decision as to whether the case merits the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor or an Assistant Public Prosecutor. It would not be appropriate to accept the position that whenever an application is made it should be allowed and a Special Public Prosecutor should be appointed, this would be contrary to the spirit of the scheme of the Code. There may be cases where a powerful complainant may have begun a proceeding to victimize his opponent. If in such a case the State concedes to the request for appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor there will be travesty of justice. Without screening on the basis of guidelines prescribed or to be prescribed, the services of a Special Public Prosecutor should not be made available to a private complainant. The primacy given to the Public Prosecutor under the scheme of the Code has a social purpose and the same would be lost if the procedure adopted by Rule 22 of Maharashtra Rules referred to above is accepted or what the High Court has indicated is adopted. The primacy given to the Public Prosecutor under the scheme of the Code has a social purpose and the same would be lost if the procedure adopted by Rule 22 of Maharashtra Rules referred to above is accepted or what the High Court has indicated is adopted. We are inclined to observe that the request for appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor should be properly examined by the Remembrancer of Legal Affairs and only when he is satisfied that the case deserves the support of a Public Prosecutor or a Special Public Prosecutor that such a person should be appointed to be in charge of the case. 8. In the instant case, Shri R.N. Sen who had already been engaged as counsel by the complainant has been proposed as Special Prosecutor by the complainant himself and the proposal has been accepted by the Government. Here, thus, a regularly appointed Public Prosecutor has been substituted by a counsel engaged by the complainant and the Government has also agreed that the counsel so engaged shall be paid by the complainant. Such a course on mere asking of the complainant should not have been adopted. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23rd December, 1997 (Annexure-P/4) appointing the respondent no. 4, R.N. Sen, Advocate, Satna as Special Public Prosecutor is hereby set aside. The regular Public Prosecutor shall continue to appear in the trial. Shri R.N. Sen, Advocate shall, however, be allowed to assist the prosecution on the basis of permission granted under sub-section (2) of Section 301 Cr.P.C. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed