Anil Dev Singh, J. ( 1 ) RULE D. B. ( 2 ) THIS is a writ petition whereby the petitioner seeks quashing of the notification dated March 9, 1998 issued by the Deputy Secretary (Home), Government of NCT of Delhi. By this notification respondent No. 2 has been appointed as Special Public Prosecutor to conduct case FIR No. 340/96 under Sections 363/302/201 Indian Penal Code. , P. S. Nangloi, on behalf of the State. The facts giving rise to this petition are as follows:- THE petitioner is facing trail in the aforesaid case under Section 302 Indian Penal Code for the murder of Master Hunni. The petitioner is aggrieved by the appointment of Shri P. L. Kaira, Advocate, respondent No. 2 as the Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution before the trial court on behalf of the State in the aforesaid case on the ground that respondent No. 2 was a counsel for the complainant, Shri Suresh Kaira, a relative of the deceased, in a complaint filed against the petitioner and several others under sections 302/201/364a/363/217/218/219/221/225a/193/196/120b/109/34 Indian Penal Code for the same offence in which it was alleged that the deceased had been murdered on May 13, 1996 by the respondents therein after kidnapping him for ransom. The Metropolitan Magistrate in whose court the complaint was filed dismissed the same on November 20,1998 on the ground that the complainant had not selected proper forum for filing the complaint. Thereafter, the complainant Shri Suresh Kaira filed Crl. Misc. (Main) being No. 4586/98 through respondent No. 2 under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On October 13, 1999, a learned Single Judge of this Court declined to interfere with the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate and consequently dismissed the petition. ( 3 ) THE fact that respondent No. 2 was counsel for Shri Suresh Kaira and had been engaged by him to prosecute the aforesaid complaint against the petitioner and others is not denied by the learned counsel for the State. It appears to us that the action of the State in issuing the impugned notification was improper and it was not justified in appointing respondent No. 2 as the Special Public Prosecutor since he had appeared for the complainant in the aforesaid criminal complaint and the Crl. Misc. (Main) No. 4586/98.