Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1459 (AP)

Katasani Siva Reddy v. Government Of A. P.

2003-11-25

V.V.S.RAO

body2003
V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE (11) petitioners in this writ petition are residents of Banaganapalli in kurnool district. They are accused in Crime No. 15 of 2000 of Police Station banaganapalli. They were indicted for the murder of father of 4th respondent which took place on 20. 4. 2000. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Banganapalli committed the case to the Court of Sessions. It was registered as S. C. No. 122 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, kurnool. As Accused No. 6 was absconding, the case was split up. But subsequently Accused No. 6 was apprehended and another case being S. C. No. 123 of 202 was registered. ( 2 ) ONE Sri Rajamohana Rao was the Additional Public Prosecutor of court of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, whereas Smt. V. Naga Laxmi Devi was the Additional public Prosecutor of IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge. The 4th respondent who is the son of the deceased and also happens to be a Member of A. P. Legislative Assembly appears to have addressed a letter to the Director of prosecutor, Government of A. P. to entrust S. C. No. 122 of 2002 on the file of the i Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool to Smt. V. Naga Laxmi Devi, additional Public Prosecutor in the court of IV Addl. District and Sessions judge. The said representation was forwarded by the Addl. Director of prosecutions vide letter dated 7. 10. 2002. The Government of A. P. , the 1st respondent herein, thereafter issued the impugned orders vide G. O. Rt. No. 1724, law (LAandj Courts A-2) Department dated 23. 10. 2002 whereunder the Government entrusted S. C. NO. 122 of 2002 on the file of the court of the I Addl. District and sessions Judge to Smt. V. Naga Laxmi Devi, Additional Public Prosecutor in the court of IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge. The impugned G. O. is challenged mainly on the ground that the Government of A. P. has no such power to entrust a sessions case on the file of one court to a Public Prosecutor/additional Public prosecutor of another court. Alternatively it is submitted that if the appointment is treated as an appointment of Special Public Prosecutor under sub-section (8) of Section 24 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called "cr. Alternatively it is submitted that if the appointment is treated as an appointment of Special Public Prosecutor under sub-section (8) of Section 24 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called "cr. P. C. ") the same is illegal and improper as it does not satisfy the requirements of sub-section (8) of Section 24. It is also contended that the court of III Addl. District and Sessions Judge has now been shifted to Nandyal, as a result of which S. C. No. 122 of 2002 which arose out of Crime No. 15 of 2000 of Police Station Banaganapalli in Nandyal Division, also stands transferred to the file of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Nandyal. There is an Addl. Public Prosecutor in the said court and therefore the impugned order cannot be given effect to. ( 3 ) THE 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit through their Assistant secretary to Government in Home Department. The allegation that the 4th respondent is interfering in prosecuting the petitioners is denied. It is further stated that the Government examined the proposal of the Director of prosecutions and entrusted the prosecution of petitioners in S. C. No. 122 of 2002 to Smt. V. Naga Laxmi Devi, Additional Public Prosecutor, IV Addl. District and sessions Judge in the month of October 2002. The Government has not acted with any malice and the Government is well within its powers to entrust S. C. No. 122 of 2002 to the Public Prosecutor in the court of IV Addl. District and Sessions judge, Kurnool. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the Petitioners Sri G. Veera Reddy besides raising contention as noticed herein above also submitted that the Government Order suffers from legal malice and the same was issued on extraneous considerations merely on the letter addressed by the 4th respondent. He placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in MUKUL DALAL v. UNION OF INDIA1, A. R. ANTHULAY v. R. S. NAIK2 and S. B. SHAHNEY v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 3 in support of his contention. The learned Government Pleader for Home Sri M. Rama Rao has placed before me the concerned file from the Secretariat of Government of A. P. He submits that the Government has ample powers to entrust a Sessions case on the file of one court in the district to other Sessions Court in the same district. The learned Government Pleader for Home Sri M. Rama Rao has placed before me the concerned file from the Secretariat of Government of A. P. He submits that the Government has ample powers to entrust a Sessions case on the file of one court in the district to other Sessions Court in the same district. ( 5 ) IN passing the orders, the Government considered the proposal sent by the director of Prosecutions and there is no malice on the part of the Government. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for 4th respondent Sri C. B. Ramamohan Reddy contends that under Section 24 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, the State Government has powers to entrust the Sessions case pending on the file of I Addl. Sessions court to the Public Prosecutor of IV Addl. Sessions Court. He also submitted that Sri Rajamohana Rao, Additional Public Prosecutor of the I Addl. Sessions court, it was apprehended that he was not conducting the case expeditiously and became a mute spectator to the conduct of the accused in not cooperating the court. Therefore, the 4th respondent who is the son of Satyam Reddy, the deceased addressed a letter. Thus, the learned counsel would urge that it does not in any manner vitiate the power of the Government. He submits that it is always permissible for the victims of the crime to seek speedy trial of the accused and also raise objections regarding appearance of an Advocate as a public Prosecutor/ Additional Public Prosecutor. He submits that the impugned order has worked itself out as the case being S. C. No. 122/2002 stands transferred to the court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Nandyal after its establishment where there is a regular Additional Public Prosecutor Sri Murali manohar. He submits that Sri Murali Manohar can conduct prosecution of the case. He therefore alleges that his case is pending before the courts since february 2000, the same may be directed to be disposed of expeditiously. In his reply arguments Sri G. Veera Reddy submits that the impugned order came to be passed in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner. He further objects if this court giving any directions to the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, nandyal to dispose of S. C. Nos. 122 and 123 of 2002 on its file expeditiously, he would contend that Cr. He further objects if this court giving any directions to the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, nandyal to dispose of S. C. Nos. 122 and 123 of 2002 on its file expeditiously, he would contend that Cr. P. C. provides elaborate procedure for Sessions trial like filing of charge-sheet, framing of charges, examination of accused, fixing the schedule for Sessions trial, examination of witnesses and marking of documents etc. This elaborate procedure takes time. When the law prescribes such a procedure and leaves it to the discretion of the Sessions Judge to complete various stages in the Sessions trial, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot regulate exercise of discretion by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Nandyal. ( 7 ) THE background facts and rival submissions gives rise to two points for consideration : (1)WHETHER the State Government has power and authority to entrust Sessions case pending beforeone Additional Sessions Court to the Public Prosecutor attached to another Additional Sessions Court in the district ? (2) Whether the impugned order suffers from any illegality ? (3) Whether in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution, the High Court is not entitled to give directions to a Sessions court to conduct trial in a Sessions case expeditiously ?