JUDGMENT A. H. JOSHI, J. Heard. 2. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 3. The petitioner had filed a case in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class for direction to register the offence. The direction under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was issued. Based thereon Crime No. 4 of 2007 for offence punishable under sections 120, 405, 406, 468, 469, 201, 474 read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Kadim Jalna Police Station was registered. 4. The text of first information report runs at considerable length. Substance of the first information report is narrated in the body of present writ petition in para no. 2 which reads as follows :- "2. The accused no. 1 is husband of sister of complainant Petitioner no. 1 was resident of Nashik and therefore, he entered into sale transaction. The transaction was entered in order to assist sister and her husband. The complainant has given money for the said transaction, however, in connivance with each other, accused deceived complainant and sale deed was executed in the name of accused no. 1, instead of complainant......" (quoted from paper-book page No. 3) Thus according to the petitioner the accused persons have committed acts of cheating and breach of trust, etc. apart from other offences. 5. The investigation was completed and charge-sheet has been filed, which is registered as R.C.C. No. 677 of 2007. 6. Thereafter, on 12.4.2012 petitioner filed application to the Principal Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department, Maharashtra State, Mumbai. By this application he has prayed for appointment of a Special Prosecutor. Copy of the said application is at Exh. B of the petition which is at page 21 and 22 of the paper-book. 7. It is seen that thereafter the Government has requisitioned from the petitioner a letter of consent of the Lawyer, the information about justification for appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor and other details. 8. In answer to the requisition from the Government the petitioner sent another letter dated 18.6.2012 pursuing the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor. By impugned order petitioner's request for appointment of Special Public Prosecutor is rejected. 9. By this writ petition petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Government refusing to accede to petitioner's request for appointment of a Special Prosecutor to conduct the case originated from the complaint submitted by the petitioner. 10. By impugned order petitioner's request for appointment of Special Public Prosecutor is rejected. 9. By this writ petition petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Government refusing to accede to petitioner's request for appointment of a Special Prosecutor to conduct the case originated from the complaint submitted by the petitioner. 10. Application annexure Exhibit "B" (page 21) is the foundation on which the said request was to be considered by the Government. 11. Application Exh. B (page 21) contains averments which are the foundation for prayer for appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor. The relevant text reads as follows:- (quoted from paper-book page nos. 21 & 22) 12. In the follow up letter dated 18.6.2012 submitted by the petitioner he has made submission in paragraph 5 thereof, which reads as follows :- HINDI (quoted from paper-book page No. 27) 13. We have heard oral submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner and for the State. 14. Learned Advocate Mr. Katneshwarkar has vehemently argued the case. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has exerted to pursue us. It is urged that the offence subject-matter is of the category of "economic offence", and it is a complicated case as it involves high technicalities and, therefore, appointment of a Special Prosecutor is necessary. 15. It is argued that though the order annexure "G" (page 32) is the Government decision, it does not disclose application of mind by officer having experience in legal and judicial matters. 16. Petitioner's argument is that as the letter is signed by the Desk Officer, it is meant that it is his decision. 17. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court delivered in the case of Mukul Dalal vs. Union of India & ors., reported in 1988 (3) SCC 144 . The judgment is relied on to urge that the order for permission to appoint a Special Prosecutor has to be passed after due application of mind. The appointment of Special Public Prosecutor on facts of the case was set aside by the Honourable Supreme Court as the satisfaction and application of mind was not shown. 18. We had called upon learned Advocate Mr. Katneshwakar to identify and isolate the statement of facts contained in the complaint which could demonstrate that case is complicated and intricate, and technical matters are involved. 19. Learned Advocate Mr. 18. We had called upon learned Advocate Mr. Katneshwakar to identify and isolate the statement of facts contained in the complaint which could demonstrate that case is complicated and intricate, and technical matters are involved. 19. Learned Advocate Mr. Katneshwarkar has responded answering that the bundle of facts as contained in the complaint taken together shall show that it is a case of complicated nature involving technicalities. 20. Considering the arguments we have once again adverted to the complaint, letter of request for appointment of Special Public Prosecutor and letter pursuing the request. 21. We have underlined the relevant portion which was high-lighted by learned Advocate Mr. Katneshwarkar as key words, in annexure 'B', on the basis of which prayer for appointment of Special Public Prosecutor is made, in the quotation incorporated in the foregoing para Nos. 9 and 10. 22. We have given keen and peaceful consideration to all aspects involved in the case. 23. The matters expressed in the complaint are usual and routine transactions such as agreement of sale, reposition of trust and breach thereof. 24. As we see, it is a case of agreement of sale of property and breach of trust, which according to the complainant constitutes offence and that too involving grave complications and intricacies. 25. The petitioner himself is a Lawyer and as he represents to possess versatile, very good and merited standing. In this peculiar background, who-so-ever be the Prosecutor, when the petitioner who is a Lawyer of considerable standing has himself to be one amongst the important witnesses. Petitioner has to depose the truth and withstand the cross-examination. The role of a Special Prosecutor in the facts of peculiar nature will, therefore, have comparatively very limited rather negligible impact in comparison with a case in which the complainant may be a lay person. 26. It is seen that petitioner did not make any effort to secure record whatsoever from the Government to show that preceding the said communication dated 25th September, 2012 (page 32), there is no Government decision and that any such decision is not based on application of mind by an officer specialized in the legal affairs. 27. Perusal of impugned communication discloses that it is signed by the Desk Officer does not mean that it is a decision by the Desk Officer. 27. Perusal of impugned communication discloses that it is signed by the Desk Officer does not mean that it is a decision by the Desk Officer. The submission that it is a decision by Desk Officer would suit a lay person but not a legally trained person who argues the matter, nor would fit in the mouth of a writ petitioner who himself is a Lawyer of considerable standing. It is a fact that the communication is brief. However, it does not imply that it lacks application of mind. 28. The presumption that the actions taken by public servants in due course of business are to be presumed to be performed/done in good faith unless otherwise proved. Therefore, it was open for the petitioner to have exerted to prove to the contrary in which he has utterly failed. 29. In absence of any material being brought before us, it would not be possible for us to be persuaded that the decision was not reached by any judicial officer having knowledge and expertise in judicial matters. 30. On the other hand, communications exchanged between the petitioner and the Government show that all efforts were made by the Government to secure the documents relied upon by the petitioner, understand the case and thereafter apply the mind. 31. Petitioner has failed to plead and demonstrate that the ratio of the precedent Mukul Dalal vs. Union of India has not been followed, by taking steps to secure the papers and on their production. A bald allegation that the authorities did not apply mind is easier said without exerting to prove it. In the era of Right to Information, none can be heard to plead that documents are not available. It was the duty of the petitioner who is a Lawyer to have exerted to secure copies of record to find support to urge the plea of non application of mind. The steps taken by the Government to call for documents and justification reasonably demonstrates inclination to understand the petitioner's plea. These facts rule out the ground of possibility of non application of mind by competent officer having expertise in legal and judicial matters. 32. We are, therefore, satisfied that the petitioner has a fancy for Special Public Prosecutor than warrant of facts. 33. We, therefore, dismiss the petition and discharge the Rule. Petition dismissed.