Judgment The six petitioners in this Writ Petition are accused of causing the death of one Bonagani Komuraiah of Korivi Village in Warangal District and consequently, they are facing prosecution launched by the State for the said offence. They are now challenging the validity of the orders passed by the State Government, through their G.O.Rt.No. 1447 Law (L.A.&J) Department, dated 13.10.1999, appointing Sri Pamulaparthy Sadasiva Rao, Advocate, Hanamkonda, as Special Public Prosecutor to conduct prosecution in Sessions Case No. 299 of 1998 arising out of Crime No. 34 of 1998 on the file of the Police Station Mahabubabad, Warangal District. These orders have been passed by the State, in exercise of the power available to it under sub-section (8) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The main thrust of challenge against these orders is that the petitioners apprehend that the Special Public Prosecutor may not conduct the criminal case impartially, inasmuch as he has come to be appointed by the State after entertaining a representation submitted by the wife of the deceased. Hence, the Special Public Prosecutor may get carried away and consequently, may not conduct the prosecution in a just and fair manner as a true representative of the State. Further, the petitioners point out that the District Collector and Magistrate, Warangal has been initially approached for appointing Sri P. Sadasiva Rao as the Special Public Prosecutor. The District Magistrate, without even bothering to know as to whether he has the power and competence to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor, passed orders through his proceedings, dated 15.06.1999 appointing Sri P. Sadasiva Rao, Advocate, Hanamkonda as the Special Public Prosecutor. That was called in question by these very writ petitioners by instituting Writ Petition No. 12599 of 1999. That Writ Petition was considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court and by an order dated 24.06.1999, the Writ Petition was allowed and the order passed by the District Collector and Magistrate, Warangal, appointing Sri P. Sadasiva Rao as a Special Public Prosecutor, was quashed, as the District Collector and Magistrate lacked power to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor. Thereafter, the wife of the deceased approached the State Government and the State Government acceded to her request and appointed Sri P. Sadasiva Rao as a Special Public Prosecutor through the impugned G.O.Rt.No. 1447, dated 13.10.1999. Thereafter, the wife of the deceased approached the State Government and the State Government acceded to her request and appointed Sri P. Sadasiva Rao as a Special Public Prosecutor through the impugned G.O.Rt.No. 1447, dated 13.10.1999. As was already noticed supra, the writ petitioners are apprehensive of the impartiality and fairness on the part of the Special Public Prosecutor now appointed to conduct the Sessions Case. It should also be said that the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners is fair enough to submit that Sri P. Sadasiva Rao, Advocate at Hanamkonda enjoys a clean image and reputation and that he is fairly familiar with the role and duties of a Public Prosecutor. Therefore, the entire question boils down to the power and competence of the State Government to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor. It will be appropriate to notice that one of the most important sovereign functions liable to be discharged by the State relate to prosecution of offenders in accordance with law. Any act or conduct involving a human agency, which has been prescribed as a crime, has got to be dealt with in accordance with law and the offender had to be accordingly penalized. Though the conduct of an offender may not be compatible with the standards of decent human behavior in a civilized society, but nonetheless, it has been increasingly felt that even such people will have to be dealt with absolutely fairly and a very equitably and a fair procedure offering full opportunity to the person accused to participate and demonstrate his innocence in the matter should be provided for. For achieving this very objective, the State has codified the entire procedure, which essentially provides for a fair opportunity for the accused to be tried, for the offence which is alleged to have committed. At the same time, the procedure has been evolved in such a way that it will stand the scrutiny of fairness in action. Therefore, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth called ‘the Code’) has laid down duly acceptable standards and norms, prescribing procedure to deal with trial of criminal cases. For carrying on the trial of a criminal case, a person, who is well-trained and is fairly knowledgeable about the legal principles, practices and procedure in conducting such trials, has got to be chosen by the State to act as a Public Prosecutor. For carrying on the trial of a criminal case, a person, who is well-trained and is fairly knowledgeable about the legal principles, practices and procedure in conducting such trials, has got to be chosen by the State to act as a Public Prosecutor. Therefore, the criminal procedure Code has provided, in Section 24, the detailed procedure that has got to be followed in the matter of choice and appointment of Public Prosecutors. Sub-section (3) of Section 24 of the Code mandates that the State Government shall appoint a Public Prosecutor for every District. Sub-section (4) thereof indicates that the District Magistrate, shall, in consultation with the Sessions Judge, prepare a panel of names of persons, who, in his opinion, are fit to be appointed as Public Prosecutor. Sub-section (5) makes it abundantly clear that no person, whose name is not included in the panel prepared by the District Magistrate in consultation with the Sessions Judge, shall be appointed as a Public Prosecutor. Based upon these mandatory provisions, Sri A. Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the writ petitioners has faintly attempted to contend that even in the case of appointment of Special Public Prosecutors, there ought to have been a panel prepared containing the names of persons, who are fit to be appointed as such, and the process of consultation with the Sessions Judge ought not to have been dispensed with altogether. According to the learned counsel, this procedure would ensure that the right persons are included in any such panel, so that the choice of appointment of a Public Prosecutor would be confined to those who are otherwise fit and suitable by the normal standards followed and adopted over a long period of time in making such appointments. However, to my mind, this contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners does not get attracted to a situation where the State Government appoints a Special Public Prosecutor for conducting trial of a particular case or a class of cases. The contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners is essentially based upon the mandatory requirements enshrined in sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 24 of the Code. The contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners is essentially based upon the mandatory requirements enshrined in sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 24 of the Code. However, sub-section (8) thereof confers power on the State to appoint, for the purpose of any case or class of cases, any person, who has been in practice as an Advocate for not less than ten years, as a Special Public Prosecutor. This is a special feature and provision contained in the Code. Sub-section (8) reads as follows: “Section 24(8): The Central Government or the State Government may appoint, for the purposes of any case or class of cases, a person who has been in practice as an advocate for not less than ten years as a Special Public Prosecutor.” (Emphasis is mine) When the contents of sub-section (8) are contrasted with the contents of sub-section (7), it becomes imminently clear that in the matter of appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor by the State, different criteria and yardsticks will be adopted. It is pertinent to extract sub-section (7) of Section 24 of the Code, which readds as under: “Section 24(7): A person shall be eligible to be appointed as a Public Prosecutor or an Additional Public Prosecutor under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) or sub-section (6), only if he has been in practice as an advocate for not less than seven years.” (Emphasis is mine) This provision made it very clear that a person to be appointed as a Public Prosecutor or as an Additional Public Prosecutor under sub-sections (1), (2), (3) or (6) of Section 24, such person is required to be in practice as an Advocate for not less than seven years. Therefore, the statute has recognized a clear-cut distinction between the method and manner of making appointment of Public Prosecutor with that of the appointment procedure of Special Public Prosecutor. As was already noticed supra, the State is mandatorily required to appoint a Public Prosecutor for every District in the State. It is also empowered to appoint as many Additional Public Prosecutors as it may consider necessary and expedient to do so, but when it comes to the question of appointment of Special Public Prosecutors, the power is liable to be exercised in that regard, either by the Central Government or by the State Government as the case may be. It is also empowered to appoint as many Additional Public Prosecutors as it may consider necessary and expedient to do so, but when it comes to the question of appointment of Special Public Prosecutors, the power is liable to be exercised in that regard, either by the Central Government or by the State Government as the case may be. There are no other conditions attached for exercise of this power by the State. The State is therefore, at liberty to choose an appropriate person, who has been in practice as an Advocate for not less than 10 years, to be appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor for conducting a particular case or a class of cases. It goes without saying that the power conferred by sub-section (8) of Section 24 is required to be exercised carefully, sparingly and cautiously. Several factors and circumstances might compel or require the State to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor, while, at the same time care has to be taken to see that no such measure in any way reflects on the competence and impartiality of the Public Prosecutor appointed for the District. It will not be very difficult to imagine that certain types of crimes committed might require expertise in a particular area or field of law. Further, certain types of offences might compellingly require the wiser counsel to be available to the State in the matter of conducting the prosecution against the accused. That is the reason why a different yardstick has been chosen to be employed, by the Parliament when it comes to the question of appointing a Special Public Prosecutor. The matter calls for noticing the role of a Public Prosecutor in carrying out the prosecution. He does not represent any one party or take a particular side of a litigation, as the role of an Advocate is normally understood in a conventional mould. A Public Prosecutor does not represent the Police but represents the State, which is not unduly bothered to secure conviction for every offence and to every offender. The State’s endeavor is essentially to hphold the majesty of law made by it and a strict adherence thereto by the society. The State is ever anxious to secure justice to all it’s citizens and hence, depends on the impartial advice of the Public Prosecutor, even while dealing with an accused person. The State’s endeavor is essentially to hphold the majesty of law made by it and a strict adherence thereto by the society. The State is ever anxious to secure justice to all it’s citizens and hence, depends on the impartial advice of the Public Prosecutor, even while dealing with an accused person. Hence, the Public Prosecutor dons essentially the role of establisher of truth by adopting absolutely fair means and a clinically transparent procedure. The Public Prosecutor, if required to do so, has to bring out quite openly and frankly that material which might go to establish the innocence of the accused. In that respect, the Court regards him as an officer of the Court, as the main purpose of the Court’s functioning is riveted around exposing the truth of the matter. I, therefore, do not have any hesitation to reject the contention canvassed by Sri A. Prabhakara Rao in this regard. To my mind, the State is at liberty to choose an appropriate person, who enjoys a clean reputation in the society, to act as a Special Public Prosecutor. The very nature of appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor connotes great significance. It is not merely a professional challenge for the person so chosen to act as a Special Public Prosecutor, but it also connotes a significant trust that is reposed in the sense of impartiality and fairness in carrying on the prosecution on the part of the chosen individual. I, therefore, do not have any hesitation to repel the apprehensions entertained by the writ petitioners as mere apprehensions without carrying any conviction or without any basis. While the Code and various other provisions and principles of law, including the fundamentally guarantee right to life, have all been uniformly recognizing the need and necessity to adhere to the value based human rights towards the accused, it is apt to remember that even the victims have got certain rights. Every victim of violation of any of his assured rights or the dependants or the kith and kin of the victims have also got every right to seek for justice to be done to the cause of the victim. The cause of the victim cannot be completely ignored or thrown to winds, in one’s anxiety to protect the rights of the accused. The cause of the victim cannot be completely ignored or thrown to winds, in one’s anxiety to protect the rights of the accused. Protection of rights of the accused and the obligation to hold the scales even in favour of the accused does not necessarily render the rights of the victims to be completely forgotten, compromised or ignored. The rights of the victims are equally important, inasmuch as they are also essentially citizens of this nation. Every human being carries with him a sense of dignity and a sacred purpose of his life. He is entitled to lead a life of his own and on honorable terms of his own, so long as they do not come in conflict with the rights of yet another individual. In a free society, where liberty is one of the hallmarks of such society, every citizen is entitled to carry on his life on terms, which are best suitable to him, so long as such actions do not come in conflict with any prescriptions of law or the rights of the fellow human beings. Hence, every victim of the outrage of his rights or his dependants or kith and kin are as much entitled to seek protection from law, as the accused persons are entitled to. Therefore, even a victim is entitled to seek and compel the State to carry on the prosecution fairly, objectively and impartially. There is nothing wrong, therefore, if the kith and kin of a victim solicit the State and request it to appoint a particular person, who enjoys a clean reputation and is known for his professional acumen and knowledge of law to be appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor. To my mind, sub-section (8) of Section 24 recognizes this inherent right of the victim or his kith and kin and hence, it enables the State to appoint a person, who is considered by it as suitable for carrying on prosecution of a particular case or class of cases. The State is bound to verify the credentials of any individual, both professional and personal, before narrowing down it’s choice. After all, it has to make sure that he has the requisite 10 years of standing at the Bar. The State is bound to verify the credentials of any individual, both professional and personal, before narrowing down it’s choice. After all, it has to make sure that he has the requisite 10 years of standing at the Bar. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the request made by the wife of the deceased Komuraiah is not a factor to disentitle the State from appointing Sri P. Sadasiva Rao as a Special Public Prosecutor. The learned Government Pleader for Home, in support of his contention, relied upon a judgment rendered by the Division Bench in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Margdarsi Financiers ( 2009(3) ALT 1 (D.B.)). The crime has been commissioned on 06.03.1998. The State has appointed Sri Sadasiva Rao as a Special Public Prosecutor through the impugned G.O. It is rather unfortunate that the State Government, of all, in its Law Department, have not bothered to evince interest in prosecuting this case properly. Till such time I ordered, the State has not bothered to file its counter-affidavit and thus complete the pleadings in the case, for this case to be heard by the Court. Only on 22.06.2010, a counter-affidavit has been filed by the Secretary to the Government in the Law Department. While entertaining this Writ Petition, an interlocutory relief has been granted by staying all further proceedings in Sessions Case No. 299 of 1998. For the past ten years, the Sessions Case could not be taken up by the Court for conducting the trial. It is rather tragic that a Sessions Case should have been confined to the cold storage for this long. These observations are made essentially to ensure that the State would evolve an appropriate procedure to ensure that wherever trial of sessions cases is stopped or withheld, the matter is attended to immediately and promptly and the necessary follow up action is taken up. I hope and trust that this kind of a tragedy would not get repeated in future. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this case. The Writ Petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. I hope and trust that this kind of a tragedy would not get repeated in future. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this case. The Writ Petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. However, I have been informed at the Bar by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader for Home that Sessions Case No. 299 of 1998 has since been made over to the VI Additional Sessions Judge at Mahabubabad in Warangal District where such a Court has been recently established. It is also brought to my notice by both the learned counsel that no sessions cases are taken up for trial there for want of a Judicial Officer presiding over the Court. In these set of circumstances and also in view of the fact that the sessions case is of the year 1998, I consider it appropriate to direct the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge at Warangal to immediately make over Sessions Case No. 299 of 1998, which is now lying on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Judge, at Warangal and transfer the same on to his Court or any other Sessions Court at Warangal. I hope and trust that in a reasonable quick time, the Sessions Case would be completed, inasmuch as it will be in the interests of all concerned, the accused and the State to complete the case. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Warangal, so that the necessary follow up action would be taken immediately. A copy of this order may also be communicated to Sri Pamulaparthy Sadasiva Rao, Advocate and Special Public Prosecutor, Hanamkonda, Warangal District.