JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the order dated 19th January, 2015 passed in W.P. No.742/2015 by the learned Single Judge declining to entertain the writ petition where the appellant had sought for a direction to the State of Karnataka to appoint any other Senior Lawyer as Special Public Prosecutor in Criminal Appeal Nos. 835838/2014. 2. The appellant is a Senior Politician and now he is 93 years old. He is the General Secretary of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (D.M.K.) party, which is the principal opposition party in Tamil Nadu. He was elected as a Member of the Parliament. He was later elected as a Member of the Tamil Nadu State Legislative Assembly and served as Cabinet Minister in the State of Tamil Nadu on four occasions. 3. Selvi Jayalalitha was the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. AIADMK party headed by her was defeated in the General Election held in the year 1996. DMK party was voted to power. The appellant was a Minister in the said Ministry. Special Courts were constituted for the trial of cases filed against Selvi Jayalalitha and others. The constitution of Special Court came to be upheld by the Apex Court. Thereafter, in the year 1997, C.C.No.7 of 1997 was filed for the trial of accused and three others, who have been chargesheeted for offences under Section 120B of IPC, Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for the alleged accumulation of wealth disproportionate to their known sources of income. Yet another case in C.C.No.2/2001 was also filed against others. Trial of C.C.No.7/1997 progressed and by August 2000, 250 prosecution witnesses had been examined. In the general election held in May 2001, AIADMK Party headed by Selvi Jayalalaitha secured an absolute majority in the Legislative Assembly. She became the Chief Minister. The said appointment was challenged and Apex Court nullified her appointment. Consequently, she ceased to hold the office of the Chief Minister. However she was declared elected in a byeelection and was again sworn in as a Chief Minister. With the change in Government, three Public Prosecutors resigned. When the trial resumed as many as 76 P.Ws. had been recalled for crossexamination on the ground that the counsel appearing for the respondents or some of them had earlier been busy in some other case filed against them. The Public Prosecutor did not object. With the change in Government, three Public Prosecutors resigned. When the trial resumed as many as 76 P.Ws. had been recalled for crossexamination on the ground that the counsel appearing for the respondents or some of them had earlier been busy in some other case filed against them. The Public Prosecutor did not object. Majority of these witnesses resiled from their previous statementinchief. The Public Prosecutor did not make any attempt to declare them hostile and crossexamine them. 4. It is in this background, the appellant moved the Apex Court under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) for transfer of C.C. No.7/1997 and C.C. No.2/2001 on the file of the XI Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court No.1), Chennai in the State of Tamil Nadu to a Court of equal and competent jurisdiction in any other State. In those proceedings, the Apex Court after referring to the various judgments after going through the evidence of some witnesses, was of the view that it does appear that the new Public Prosecutor was handinglove with the accused thereby creating a reasonable apprehension of likelihood of failure of justice in the minds of the public at large. There was a strong indication that process of justice was being subverted. Therefore, they thought it expedient in the ends of justice to allow the transfer petition. Then they went into the question to which State the cases should be transferred and came to the conclusion that the State of Karnataka would be the most convenient due to its nearness to Tamil Nadu. Therefore, they passed the order allowing the transfer petition and transferred the said case from the State of Tamil Nadu to the State of Karnataka. The said judgment is reported in (2004) 3 SCC 767 . 5. The Government of Karnataka in obedience to the aforesaid judgment dated 18th November, 2003 issued a notification dated 19th February, 2005 constituting XXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Court as a Special Court to try the said case and the said case was renumbered as Special C.C. No.208/2004. As is clear from the said notification, Sri.B.V.Acharya, learned Senior Advocate and former Advocate General of Karnataka was appointed as a Public Prosecutor under SubSection (8) of Section 24 of the Code. The Public Prosecutor so appointed conducted the trial till 02.02.2013. As is clear from the said notification, Sri.B.V.Acharya, learned Senior Advocate and former Advocate General of Karnataka was appointed as a Public Prosecutor under SubSection (8) of Section 24 of the Code. The Public Prosecutor so appointed conducted the trial till 02.02.2013. On his resigning from the said post, again the State of Karnataka by its order dated 02.02.2013 appointed the 5th respondent as Special Public Prosecutor in place of Sri. B.V.Acharya. 6. When the 5th respondent was prosecuting the case, the appellant filed W.P. No.38075/2013 before this Court seeking removal of the 5th respondent from the post of Special Public Prosecutor. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the Government of Karnataka issued a notification dated 26.08.2013 withdrawing the appointment of the 5th respondent as Special Public Prosecutor without assigning any reason and without consulting the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court. The said action was challenged before the Apex Court by the accused. The learned Attorney General appeared for the State of Karnataka in the said case on 06.09.2013 and informed the Apex Court that the notification dated 26.08.2013 would be withdrawn with a view to consult the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court. Therefore, the said writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous. Thereafter, the State Government withdrew the notification dated 26.08.2013 vide notification dated 10.09.2013. Simultaneously, by a letter of the same date asked the 5th respondent not to appear in the matter before the Special Judge. Then the accused challenged the said letter/order before the Apex Court. During the pendency of the said writ petitions, the Government of Karnataka consulted the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court for withdrawing the appointment of the 5th respondent as Special Public Prosecutor. The Chief Justice concurred with the view of the State Government vide communication dated 14.09.2013. Thus the appointment of the 5th respondent stood withdrawn by the Government of Karnataka vide notification dated 16.09.2013. 7. Aggrieved by the said order/notification, the accused preferred the writ petition Nos. 154/2013 with No.166/2013 challenging the order dated 14.09.2013 as well as 16.09.2013. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and after taking note of the facts of the case, the Apex Court observed that they have no hesitation in holding that the notification purporting to revoke the appointment of the 5th respondent as State Public Prosecutor is liable to be struck down. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and after taking note of the facts of the case, the Apex Court observed that they have no hesitation in holding that the notification purporting to revoke the appointment of the 5th respondent as State Public Prosecutor is liable to be struck down. They observed that fair trial is the main object of criminal procedure and such fairness should not be hampered or threatened in any manner. Fair trial entails the interests of the accused, the victim and of the society. Thus, fair trial must be accorded to every accused in the spirit of the right to life and personal liberty and the accused must get a free and fair, just and reasonable trial on the charge imputed in a criminal case. Any breach or violation of public rights and duties, adversely affects the community as a whole and it becomes harmful to the Society in general. In all circumstances, the Courts have a duty to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice and such duty is to vindicate and uphold the “majesty of the law” and the Courts cannot turn a blind eye to vexatious or oppressive conduct that occurs in relation to criminal proceedings. They also took note of the letter dated 29.01.2013 communicated by the learned Registrar General of the High Court of Karnataka to the State Government with regard to the experience of 5th respondent. In the letter it was mentioned that the 5th respondent, who is presently working as State Public Prosecutor II has standing experience of 38 years at the Bar exclusively on criminal side, he has conducted the cases before the trial court as a defence counsel and that he has served as a Government Pleader from 1977 for a period of three years in the High Court of Karnataka and as Additional Public Prosecutor for a period of three years and currently for the past eight years working as State Public Prosecutor II in the High Court of Karnataka. Therefore, they were of the opinion that the order of removal of the 5th respondent is a product of malafides and the said order is not sustainable in the eye of law. As such the same was quashed. The said judgment is also reported in 2014(2) SCC 401. Therefore, they were of the opinion that the order of removal of the 5th respondent is a product of malafides and the said order is not sustainable in the eye of law. As such the same was quashed. The said judgment is also reported in 2014(2) SCC 401. Therefore, the order appointing the 5th respondent as a Special Public Prosecutor dated 02.02.2013 was restored and he was permitted to conduct the trial before the Special Court. It is not in dispute that the trial has ended in conviction on 27.09.2014 and the accused were sentenced. 8. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused have preferred appeals before this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 835838/2014. The Principal Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu by an order dated 29.09.2014 on a request made by the Director, Vigilance and Anticorruption, Chennai requesting that the 5th respondent, be authorized to appear for them before the High Court of Karnataka, authorized the Director, Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Chennai to engage the services of the 5th respondent to appear before the High Court of Karnataka. It is by virtue of the said authorization, the 5th respondent is appearing on behalf of the Director, Vigilance and Anti corruption who is a party to the appeal. The said order reads as under: “ORDER The Director, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennal, in the letter read above, has requested the Government that Thiru G. Bhavani Singh, Special Public Prosecutor, who has conducted the trial in Special C.C. No.208/2004 before the Special Judge, 36th Additional City Civil & Sessions Court, Bengaluru, may be authorized to appear before the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, on behalf of the Directorate of Vigilance and AntiCorruption, Chennai in any Appeal/Bail petition/any other petitioner that may arise out of the order of the above Trial Court. 2. The Government after careful examination, have decided to authorize the Director, Vigilance and AntiCorruption, Chennai to engage the services of Thiru G. Bhavani Singh, Special Public Prosecutor to appear before the Hon’ble Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru on behalf of the Directorate of Vigilance and AntiCorruption, Chennai in any Appeal/Bail Petition/ any other petition that may arise out of the order dated 27092014 on the above Trial Court in all hearings. (By order of the Governor) Jatindra Nath Swain Principal Secretary to Government” 9. (By order of the Governor) Jatindra Nath Swain Principal Secretary to Government” 9. In the said appeals, the accused filed an application for enlarging them on bail during the pendency of the appeal. The said application was contested. The learned Single Judge of this Court, who heard the application by a considered order rejected the application for grant of bail. Aggrieved by the said order, the accused preferred an appeal to the Apex Court by way of a Special leave to appeal (Criminal) No.7900/2014. The Apex Court by an order dated 17.10.2014 released the accused on bail. The said order reads as under: “ORDER After hearing Shri Fali S. Nariman, Shri K.T.S. Tulsi, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Shri Subramanium Swamy, partyinperson and also the complainant, for the present, we suspend the sentence and direct that the petitioners, (i) Selvi J.Jayalalithaa, (ii) Smt.N.Sasikala, (iii) Mr.V.N. Sudhakaran, and (iv) Smt. J.Elasvarasi be released on bail on executing a bond with two solvent sureties by each of them to the satisfaction of the 36th Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge (Spl. Court for Trial of Criminal Cases against Kum. Jayalalitha & Ors) at Bangalore. Call these matters on 18th December, 2014.” 10. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an order on 18.12.2014 requesting the Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Court to constitute a Special Bench for hearing of the appeals. The said order reads as under: “ORDER Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court dated 17.10.2014, the petitioners have been released on bail. Petitioners have filed an affidavit dated 10.12.2014 to the effect that the entire records of the trial court has been filed before the High Court. From the affidavit, it is clear that necessary records have been filed and the appeals are ripe for hearing. Keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case, we request the learned Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka to constitute a Special Bench on the date of reopening of the High Court for hearing of the appeals exclusively on daytoday basis and dispose of the same as early as possible at any rate within three months. Bail granted by us earlier is extended by another four months from today. Call these special leave petitions on 17.04.2015.” Now the special leave petition is to be listed on 17.04.2015 before the Apex Court. 11. Bail granted by us earlier is extended by another four months from today. Call these special leave petitions on 17.04.2015.” Now the special leave petition is to be listed on 17.04.2015 before the Apex Court. 11. The appellant herein made a representation on 24th December, 2014 as per Annexure ‘G’ requesting the Government of Karnataka to appoint a suitable Senior Lawyer to appear for the respondent i.e., the Director of Vigilance and AntiCorruption of Tamil Nadu before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal Nos. 835838/2014. The appellant also filed a memo in Criminal Appeal Nos. 835838/2014 contending that the 5th respondent is not the Special Public Prosecutor appointed by the Karnataka Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka. He has filed a memo of appearance based on G.O. No.865/2014 dated 02.01.2014 issued by DVAC, Tamil Nadu on 30.09.2014, which is illegal and contrary to the directions issued by the Supreme Court of India. He cannot appear in the appeals on the file of the Hon’ble High Court. Therefore, he sought for appropriate orders. This memo was filed on 07.01.2015 and it is submitted that the memo is not yet considered. 12. He submits that he has been assisting the Trial Court and higher Courts to arrive at the truth by intervening at various stages of the above case. His locus standi had been recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the ground that an opposition political party plays a vital and important role in democracy by pointing out the misdeeds of the ruling party. The Special C.C. No.208/2004 referred to supra is now over and the appeals are filed by the convicted accused before this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 835, 836, 837 & 838/2014. The said appeals are likely to be heard in the near future. There is an urgent necessity to appoint an appropriate and suitable Senior Lawyer as Special Public Prosecutor. During the trial, he filed I.A. No.1143/2013 under Section 301(2) Cr.P.C. before the Special Judge requesting for permission to assist the prosecution during the trial of the case. The said application was allowed and he was permitted to assist the prosecution. He had engaged a counsel. He and his counsel attended every hearing and participated in the trial court proceedings throughout. The said application was allowed and he was permitted to assist the prosecution. He had engaged a counsel. He and his counsel attended every hearing and participated in the trial court proceedings throughout. He has referred to the observations made by the Special Judge in the judgment, which is the subject matter of appeal before this Court. Then, he has referred to the conduct of the 5th respondent during the hearing of the bail application in the appeal and the dismissal of the said application. He also referred to a writ petition in W.P. No.38075/2013 filed by him before this Court seeking removal of respondent No.5 from the post of Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the trial of the special case. The said writ petition is still pending. Since the trial has ended in conviction and the appeals have now been filed before this Court, he is renewing his prayer to remove the 5th respondent, as it is not appropriate to allow a person indicted during the trial of the proceedings, to continue as a Special Public Prosecutor in the appeals. He has sent a representation to the 1st and 2nd respondents seeking removal of the 5th respondent and appoint a new Special Public Prosecutor. His grievance is that the said representations are not considered. In those circumstances, he filed this writ petition No.742/2015 seeking a direction to replace the 5th respondent, who is continuing to appear in the Criminal Appeals Nos. 835838/2014 as a counsel representing the D.V. & A.C. 13. Before the learned Single Judge, as the appellant submitted that, he would not go into the allegations made against the 5th respondent, but confine his submissions to the legal issues, the 5th respondent has not filed any statement of objections. Similarly, other respondents also have not filed any objections. 835838/2014 as a counsel representing the D.V. & A.C. 13. Before the learned Single Judge, as the appellant submitted that, he would not go into the allegations made against the 5th respondent, but confine his submissions to the legal issues, the 5th respondent has not filed any statement of objections. Similarly, other respondents also have not filed any objections. The learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties and after taking note of the order passed by the Apex Court granting bail on 17.10.2014 and extending the bail by an order dated 18.12.2014 and the order of the Apex Court directing the State of Karnataka to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor for the case, held that, notwithstanding the validity or otherwise of the appointment of respondent No.5 as made by respondent No.3 through the State Government of Tamil Nadu, the fact that the very Special Public Prosecutor has now been appointed as the Counsel to represent in the appeals as well, may not cause prejudice in the proceedings. He further held that, it is therefore, a matter of formality for the Supreme Court to clarify as to the procedure in appointing a counsel and his assistant, if any, and in the conduct of further proceedings. To hazard a guess, the indication is that the proceedings in entirety, till the same attains finality, shall be taken to its logical conclusion by the State of Karnataka. In any event, since this Court would not be competent to interpret or expound on what is not spelt out in the directions issued by the Supreme Court, insofar as the procedure to be followed in the manner or terms of appointment of prosecution counsel, post, the judgment of the Trial Court, in the appeals now pending, it would be appropriate if the proceedings are allowed to continue notwithstanding the challenge as to the validity or otherwise of the appointment of respondent No.5, as there is no discernible prejudice caused by his continuance as Special Public Prosecutor for the time being. This is especially so, when the proceedings are directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to be conducted on a day to day basis, before a Special Bench and with expedition. Hence, to pronounce on the validity of the disputed appointment and to hamper the proceedings would be counter productive and undesirable. This is especially so, when the proceedings are directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to be conducted on a day to day basis, before a Special Bench and with expedition. Hence, to pronounce on the validity of the disputed appointment and to hamper the proceedings would be counter productive and undesirable. It is open either for the State Government of Karnataka or the petitioner himself, to seek further clarifications from the Supreme Court as to the procedure that is to be followed in making appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor and an assistant or assistants, if any, to represent the State of Karnataka. With those observations, the petition was disposed of. 14. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before this Court. In this appeal, on 04.02.2015, the appellant filed a memo submitting that no relief as such against the 3rd respondent is sought for, either in the writ petition or in the writ appeal. He was only a formal party to the petition and appeal and he was arrayed as a party since he happened to be the investigator of the case. Therefore, he requested for deleting respondent No.3 from the array of the parties. This Court, by an order dated 05.02.2015 granted the said prayer and directed deletion of respondent No.3. 15. Sri C.V.Nagesh, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant, assailing the impugned order contended that under Section 24(1) of the Code for every High Court, the State Government shall appoint a Public Prosecutor for conducting in such Court, any prosecution, appeal or other proceeding on behalf of the State of Karnataka. Therefore, the State of Karnataka has appointed the 5th respondent as a Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the trial of the case. Now that the trial is over, the accused are convicted and sentenced, they have preferred an appeal before this Court. In the appeal filed by the accused challenging the conviction and sentence before this Court, it is only the Public Prosecutor appointed by the State Government under Section 24(1) of the Act, who is competent to represent the State Government. Elaborating this point, he submitted that once a case is transferred from one State to another State, though originally, the prosecution was launched by the transferor State after such transfer, it is the transferee State which would be the State prosecuting the case. Elaborating this point, he submitted that once a case is transferred from one State to another State, though originally, the prosecution was launched by the transferor State after such transfer, it is the transferee State which would be the State prosecuting the case. Transferor Court has no power to appoint a Public Prosecutor in such case, which is pending in the transferee Court. The State of Karnataka, in pursuance of the directions issued by the Apex Court, appointed a Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the trial. The accused have preferred an appeal. The State of Karnataka has abdicated its responsibility of appointing a Special Public Prosecutor to represent the State in the High Court where the appeals are pending. The appointment made by the 3rd respondent, who is deleted from this appeal is without the authority of law and is nonest. The State of Karnataka has not appointed the 5th respondent and therefore, the 5th respondent is an unauthorized person, who is now representing the deleted 3rd respondent in the pending appeal, where in fact the State of Karnataka is not even arrayed as a respondent. He referred to Section 25 of the Act, which provides for appointment of an Assistant Public Prosecutor for conducting cases in the Court of Magistrates. Section 24(1) of the Code generally provides for appointment of Public Prosecutor and Additional Public Prosecutors for conducting in such Court, any prosecution, appeal or proceedings on behalf of the State Government. He also referred to Section 24(3) which provides for appointment of a Public Prosecutor and one or more additional Public Prosecutors for the District and therefore, he contends that it is only the Public Prosecutor appointed for such Courts, who are competent to prosecute the appeal. Section 301 of the Code only enables such Public Prosecutors, who are appointed to those Courts to appear and plead without any written authority before such Court in which that case is under inquiry, trial or appeal. 16. In the instant case, the 5th respondent is appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor under Section 24(8) of the Code. When the appointment of the 5th respondent as a Special Public Prosecutor to conduct trial before the Special Court has come to an end with the conclusion of the trial, he has no locus standi to appear in the pending appeals preferred by the accused. When the appointment of the 5th respondent as a Special Public Prosecutor to conduct trial before the Special Court has come to an end with the conclusion of the trial, he has no locus standi to appear in the pending appeals preferred by the accused. The State of Karnataka being the prosecuting agency is duty bound to make an appointment of a Public Prosecutor either under Section 24(1) or under Section 24(8) of the Code to conduct the said appeals in respect of a request made. 17. Sri. Prof. Ravi Verma Kumar, learned Advocate General, appearing for the State of Karnataka submitted that in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in consultation with the Hon’ble Chief Justice, the State of Karnataka appointed a Senior Counsel as the Public Prosecutor, who conducted the trial. When the said Senior Counsel pleaded his inability to continue to appear, they appointed the 5th respondent as the Public Prosecutor, who conducted the proceedings. Now the trial has ended in an order of conviction. Accused have preferred the appeals before this Court. As earlier, the appointment was made in pursuance of the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, their understanding is that the obligation to appoint was only during trial. With the trial coming to an end with the order of conviction, that obligation ceases. As there is no fresh direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor, they have not made any such appointment. Though the State has appointed a Public Prosecutor under Section 24(1) of the Code, in the absence of any direction from the Apex Court, the said Public Prosecutor is not appearing in the pending appeals before the High Court. As the matter is subjudice, they have not taken any further action in this matter. 18. Sri S.S.Naganand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent contended that the appellant has no locus standi to prefer either writ petition or this writ appeal. Though it is at appellant’s instance, the Apex Court transferred the Criminal case pending in the Madras Court to the Bangalore Court, that is, by virtue of the power under Section 406 of the Code but SubSection (2) of Section 406 enables a party interested to move the Supreme Court for such transfer. Though it is at appellant’s instance, the Apex Court transferred the Criminal case pending in the Madras Court to the Bangalore Court, that is, by virtue of the power under Section 406 of the Code but SubSection (2) of Section 406 enables a party interested to move the Supreme Court for such transfer. But such an interest is not sufficient to maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to compel the State Government to exercise its power under Section 24 of the Code in the matter of appointment of a Public Prosecutor. Before a writ of mandamus could be issued, the person, who has approached the Court must have a legal right. The State should be under an obligation to perform a duty towards such person. If there is a breach of such duty, the person has a right to seek a writ of mandamus. The appellant has no such right and the writ petition itself was not maintainable. For the same reasons, this writ appeal is also not maintainable. 19. Adverting to the legal position, he submitted that by exercising power under Section 406 of the Code the Apex Court transferred the case from Madras to Bangalore and at that time, the Apex Court specifically directed the State Government to appoint a Senior Counsel having experience in Criminal trials as Public Prosecutor to conduct these cases. It is in obedience to the said direction, the State of Karnataka first issued a notification dated 19th February, 2005 appointing Sri.B.V.Acharya, Senior Advocate and former Advocate General of Karnataka as a Public Prosecutor. Again a notification came to be issued on 02.02.2013 appointing the 5th respondent as the Special Public Prosecutor. Section 24(8) of the Code, which is invoked by the State for such appointment provides appointment for the purpose of any case or class of cases. Section 301 of the Code provides that a person so appointed as a Public Prosecutor and incharge of a case may appear and plead without any written authority before any Court in which that case is under enquiry, trial or appeal. Therefore, when the 5th respondent was appointed as a Public Prosecutor in respect of the above case, he had conducted the trial successfully, which has resulted in conviction and now that case is in the High Court in appeals. Therefore, when the 5th respondent was appointed as a Public Prosecutor in respect of the above case, he had conducted the trial successfully, which has resulted in conviction and now that case is in the High Court in appeals. Therefore, without any written authority, he can appear in the High Court. The contention that his appointment came to an end with the conclusion of the trial and a fresh appointment has to be made by the State of Karnataka for conducting the appeal is contrary to the aforesaid statutory provisions and therefore, he submits that there is no merit in this appeal. He also pointed out that the deleted 3rd respondent has engaged the services of the 5th respondent to represent them in the pending appeal. Even if that order is void, unless it is challenged by the appellant and is set at naught by a Competent Court, it is in force and therefore, the contention that the said order is nonest and has to be ignored is not a correct proposition of law. He also submitted that the appeals before the High Court is heard on day to day basis in terms of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The argument on behalf of the 1st and 2nd accused is over. Now, it is half way through. At this stage, any order to be passed by this Court, which would have the effect of removing the 5th respondent, would obviously affect the speedy disposal of the appeal as directed by the Apex Court. The hearing began on 5th of January, 2013. He also submitted that though certain allegations are made against the 5th respondent with regard to the way he has conducted the case, the fact remains that the accused were convicted. That would show that there is no merit in any of the allegations made against him and therefore, he submits that no case for interference is made out. In fact the accused are not made parties to these proceedings. 20. In view of the aforesaid facts and the rival contentions, the point that arises for our consideration is as under: (a) Whether the appointment of the 5th respondent as a Special Public Prosecutor in C.C. No.7/1997, which is renumbered in the Special Court as Special CC. In fact the accused are not made parties to these proceedings. 20. In view of the aforesaid facts and the rival contentions, the point that arises for our consideration is as under: (a) Whether the appointment of the 5th respondent as a Special Public Prosecutor in C.C. No.7/1997, which is renumbered in the Special Court as Special CC. NO.208/2004 has come to an end after the passing of the order convicting and sentencing the accused and whether the said authority do not enable him to appear for the State in the pending appeals? (b) Whether this Court has to issue any direction to the State of Karnataka to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor either under Section 24 (1) or Section 24 (8) of the Code to represent the State in pending appeals? 21. The question for consideration has arisen by virtue of a transfer of a Criminal Case from one State to another. Section 406 of the Code deals with transfer of criminal cases. It reads as under: “406. Power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals. (1) Whenever it is made to appear to the Supreme Court that an order under this section is expedient for the ends of justice, it may direct that any particular case or appeal be transferred from one High Court to another High Court or from a Criminal Court subordinate to one High Court to another Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction subordinate to another High Court. (2) The Supreme Court may act under this section only on the application of the AttorneyGeneral of India or of a party interested, and every such application shall be made by motion, which shall, except when the applicant is the AttorneyGeneral of India or the AdvocateGeneral of the State, be supported by affidavit or affirmation. (3) Where any application for the exercise of the powers conferred by this section is dismissed, the Supreme Court may, if it is of opinion that the application was frivolous or vexatious, order the applicant to pay by way of compensation to any person who has opposed the application such sum not exceeding one thousand rupees as it may consider appropriate in the circumstances of the case. 22. 22. As is clear from the language employed in this provision, the Apex Court is vested with the power to direct any particular case or appeal to be transferred from one High Court to another. It is in pursuance of this statutory provision, the Apex Court passed an order of transfer dated 18112003. It is as under: “34. ……… Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. CC No.7 of 1997 and CC No.2 of 2001 pending on the file of the XI Addl. Sessions Judge (Special Court No.1) Chennai, in the State of Tamil Nadu shall stand transferred with the following directions: (a) The State of Karnataka in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka shall constitute a Special court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to whom CC No.7 of 1997 and CC No.2 of 2001 pending on the file of the XI Addl. Sessions Judge (Special Court No.1) Chennai in the State of Tamil Nadu shall stand transferred. The Special Court to have its sitting in Bangalore. (b) xxx xxxx (c) The State of Karnataka in consultation with the Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka shall appoint a senior lawyer having experience in criminal trials as public prosecutor to conduct these cases. …….. “ (underlining by us) 23. Therefore, as the case was pending for trial before the Special Court at Chennai, the said case was transferred to the Special Court at Bangalore, with a direction to appoint a Public Prosecutor to conduct the said case. 24. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that, after the case is transferred from the Special Court at Madras to the Special Court at Bangalore, the State of Tamil Nadu ceases to be the appropriate Government which can prosecute the case against the accused. It is the transferee Statethe State of Karnataka could become the prosecuting State. In support of his contention, he relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of HANUMANT DASS vs VINAY KUMAR AND OTHERS [ AIR 1982 SC 1052 ]. After referring to Sections 385, 225, 378, 432 of the Code, the Apex Court held as under : “13. Section 432(7) extracted above defines "appropriate Government". In support of his contention, he relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of HANUMANT DASS vs VINAY KUMAR AND OTHERS [ AIR 1982 SC 1052 ]. After referring to Sections 385, 225, 378, 432 of the Code, the Apex Court held as under : “13. Section 432(7) extracted above defines "appropriate Government". "Appropriate Government" means(a) in cases where the sentence is for an offence against, or the order referred to in subsection (6) is passed under any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends, the Central Government; (b) in other cases, the Government of the State within which the offender is sentenced or the said order is passed. 14. According to this section the appropriate Government is the Government of the State of conviction and not the Government of the State where the offence was committed. A somewhat similar question came up for consideration in the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ratan Singh & Ors., 1976 Supp. SCR 552 where the respondent was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life by a court in the State of Madhya Pradesh. At his request he was transferred o a Jail in the State of Punjab, to which State he belonged. He applied to the Government of Punjab that under the Punjab Jail Manual he is entitled to be released since he had completed more than 20 years of imprisonment. The application was sent to the Government of Madhya Pradesh, which rejected it. In a Writ petition filed by him the High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that the State of Punjab was the appropriate authority to release him and directed the State of Punjab to consider the matter. This Court in appeal observed "a perusal of this provision clearly reveals that the test to determine the appropriate Government is to locate the State where the accused was convicted and sentenced and the Government of that State would be the appropriate Government within the meaning of sec. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus since the prisoner in the instant case, was tried, convicted and sentenced in the State of Madhya Pradesh, the State of Madhya Pradesh would be the appropriate Government to exercise the discretion for remission of the sentence under sec. 401(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.... 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus since the prisoner in the instant case, was tried, convicted and sentenced in the State of Madhya Pradesh, the State of Madhya Pradesh would be the appropriate Government to exercise the discretion for remission of the sentence under sec. 401(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.... ." That was a case based on section 401 of the old Criminal Procedure Code, but the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has put the matter completely beyond any controversy and reiterated the provisions of section 402(3) in subsection (7) of section 432.” 25. Again, the Supreme Court in the case of JAYENDRA SARASWATI SWAMIGAL ALIAS SUBRAMANIAM vs STATE OF TAMIL NADU [ (2008) 10 SCC 180 ] held as under: 17. As is evident from various provisions of the Cr.P.C., the State Government of Tamil Nadu can only appoint a Public Prosecutor or an Additional Public Prosecutor or a Special Public Prosecutor under Section 24 of the Cr.P.C. to conduct the prosecution and appeal, or other proceeding in any criminal courts in respect of any case pending before the courts of Tamil Nadu and in respect of any case pending before the Courts at Pondicherry, the State Government of Pondicherry is the appropriate Government to appoint Public Prosecutor, Additional Public Prosecutor or Special Public Prosecutor. 18. However, we make it clear that the State of Pondicherry can appoint any counsel as Public Prosecutor having requisite qualifications as prescribed under subsection (8) of Section 24 of Cr.P.C. whether he is a lawyer in the State of Pondicherry or any other State. As it is a criminal case registered by the State of Tamil Nadu the expenses for conducting the trial are to be borne by the State of Tamil Nadu. The Advocate fees payable to the Public Prosecutor, Additional Public Prosecutor or Special Public Prosecutor by the State of Pondicherry shall be borne by the State of Tamil Nadu and the Home Departments of the two States may undertake consultations with each other and an appropriate decision may be taken by the authorities concerned in this regard”. 26. The Delhi High Court in the case of STATE vs VIKAS YADAV AND ANOTHER, Crl. M.A. 13400/2008 decided on 7.8.2009, after referring to the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court held as under: “28. 26. The Delhi High Court in the case of STATE vs VIKAS YADAV AND ANOTHER, Crl. M.A. 13400/2008 decided on 7.8.2009, after referring to the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court held as under: “28. The legal position is that once a case is transferred by the Supreme Court under Section 406 Cr. P.C from one State to another State, the transferor State no longer retains control over the prosecution to be conducted in a Court situated in the transferee State. While transferring a case under Section 406 Cr. P.C, the Supreme Court can give appropriate directions as to which State should appoint the Public Prosecutor to conduct that particular case. But, if no such directions are given, then it is the transferee State which is to appoint the Public Prosecutor and take overall responsibility for the prosecution of the case.” 27. From the aforesaid judgments, the law is fairly clear. In pursuance of the power conferred under Section 406 of the Code, if the Supreme Court were to transfer any particular case from one High Court to another High Court or from a Criminal Court subordinate to one High Court to another Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction subordinate to another High Court, then the State from which the case is transferred loses control over the prosecution to be conducted in the transferee Court. It is the transferee State which acquires jurisdiction to prosecute the said case. If the order of transfer passed by the Apex Court does not specify who should appoint the Public Prosecutor to conduct a particular case, then it is the transferee State which has to appoint a Public Prosecutor under Section 24 of the Code. If the order of transfer specifies who should appoint the Public Prosecutor, then appointment should be made in accordance with such direction. 28. In the instant case, we have no difficulty. The Supreme Court by its order dated 18.11.2003 while transferring the case to State of Karnataka directed that the State of Karnataka in consultation with the Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka shall appoint a senior lawyer having experience in criminal trials as public prosecutor to conduct these cases. 28. In the instant case, we have no difficulty. The Supreme Court by its order dated 18.11.2003 while transferring the case to State of Karnataka directed that the State of Karnataka in consultation with the Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka shall appoint a senior lawyer having experience in criminal trials as public prosecutor to conduct these cases. It is in pursuance of the order of the Supreme Court, the State of Karnataka issued notification dated 19.2.2005, under Section 24(8) of the Code, which reads as under: “NOTIFICATION In obedience of the Judgment dated 18.11.2003 passed by the Supreme Court of India in Transfer Petition (Criminal) Nos.7778/2003 in the matter of K. Anbazhagan Vs. the Superintendent of Police and others and in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (8) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act No.2 of 1974) as amended by the Code of the Criminal Procedure (Amendment Act 1978) and Rule 30 of the Karnataka Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1977 Sri B.V.Acharya, Senior Advocate and former Advocate General of Karnataka, No.42, 5th Main, Jayamahal Extension, Bangalore – 560 041, is appointed as Public Prosecutor to conduct C.C. No.7/1997 and C.C. No.2/2001 pending on the file of the XI th Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Court No.1), Chennai, regarding trial of Ms.Jayalalitha and others in the State of Karnataka and now transferred to the XXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in pursuance. By Order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka Sd/ (Chikkahanumanthaiah) Under Secretary to Government, (Administration1) Law Department 29. The said notification makes it clear that, it was issued in obedience of the judgment dated 18.11.2003 passed by the Supreme Court of India in Transfer Petition in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (8) of Section 24 of the Code. Sri B.V.Acharya, Senior Advocate and former Advocate General of Karnataka, was appointed as Public Prosecutor to conduct CC No. 7/1997 and C.C. No. 2/2001 pending on the file of the XI Addl. Sessions Judge (Special Court No.1), Chennai (regarding trial of Ms. Jayalalitha and others in the State of Karnataka). After the Public Prosecutor so appointed resigned, by a subsequent notification dated 02.02.2013 the 5th respondent is appointed in place of Sri B.V. Acharya on same terms to conduct Special C.C. No. 208/2004. Sessions Judge (Special Court No.1), Chennai (regarding trial of Ms. Jayalalitha and others in the State of Karnataka). After the Public Prosecutor so appointed resigned, by a subsequent notification dated 02.02.2013 the 5th respondent is appointed in place of Sri B.V. Acharya on same terms to conduct Special C.C. No. 208/2004. The said notification reads as under: NOTIFICATION In obedience the Judgment dated 18.11.2003 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Transfer Petition No. 7778/2003(Criminal) in the matter of K. Anbazhagan Vs. the Superintendent of Police and others and in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (8) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act No.2 of 1974) as amended by the Code of the Criminal Procedure (Amendment Act 1978) and Rule 30 of the Karnataka Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977 Sri G. Bhavani Singh, Senior Advocate, House No.746, Srinidhi, Kadugodi, White Field Railway Station, Bangalore – 560 067, is appointed as Special Public Prosecutor in place of Sri B. V. Acharya on same terms to conduct Special C.C. No.208/2004 (in the case of Kum. Jayalalitha and others) pending on the file of the XXXVIth Additional City Civil & Sessions Court, (Special Court), Bangalore, in pursuance. Further, Sri Sandesh J. Chouta, Advocate, is continued to assist Sri G. Bhavani Singh, Special Public Prosecutor, in this case. By Order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka Sd/02022013 (K. Narayana) Deputy Secretary to Government,(Admn.1) Law, Justice and Human Rights Department 30. The Apex Court while transferring the aforesaid case from the Special Court of Tamil Nadu to the Special Court at Bangalore specifically directed, the State of Karnataka in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka shall appoint a senior lawyer having experience in trials as Public Prosecutor to conduct these cases. The Public Prosecutor so appointed shall be entitled to assistance of another lawyer of his choice. The fees and all other expenses of the Public Prosecutor and the Assistant shall be paid by the State of Karnataka who will thereafter be entitled to get the same reimbursed from the State of Tamil Nadu. 31. Therefore, when a specific direction is issued by the Apex Court at the time of transferring the case, it is the transferee CourtState of Karnataka which shall appoint the Public Prosecutor. 31. Therefore, when a specific direction is issued by the Apex Court at the time of transferring the case, it is the transferee CourtState of Karnataka which shall appoint the Public Prosecutor. The State of Tamil Nadu lost control over the case transferred to the State of Karnataka. Therefore, the State of Tamil Nadu has no jurisdiction to appoint a Public Prosecutor in the Special Court nor in the appeals which are pending in this Court. Hence, the order passed by the State of Tamil Nadu authorizing the deleted third respondent herein to engage the services of the fifth respondent is without authority and non est in the eye of law. That order does not confer any right on the fifth respondent to represent either the State of Karnataka or the State of Tamil Nadu in the pending appeals before this Court. In view of our findings recorded above that the transferor Court has no power to appoint a Public Prosecutor under Section 24 of the Code in respect of a case pending in the transferee Court, the argument that the appellant has not challenged the said order of appointment has no merit. 32. Now, the question for consideration is, when admittedly the State of Karnataka has appointed fifth respondent as a Special Public Prosecutor in obedience to the directions issued by the Apex Court, whether he can continue to appear in the appeals preferred by the accused. 33. The learned single Judge was of the view that, as the order of appointment was made by the State of Karnataka in pursuance of the direction issued by the Apex Court, it is open either for the State Government of Karnataka or the petitioner himself to seek further clarifications from the Supreme Court as to the procedure that is to be followed in making the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor and an assistant or assistants, if any, to represent the State of Karnataka. 34. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that, the order of the Supreme Court is before us. The order appointing the Public Prosecutor is also placed on record. The aforesaid question has to be decided in the light of the statutory provisions and the orders passed and, therefore, he submits the question of appellant approaching either the State of Karnataka or the Supreme Court for clarification would not arise. 35. The order appointing the Public Prosecutor is also placed on record. The aforesaid question has to be decided in the light of the statutory provisions and the orders passed and, therefore, he submits the question of appellant approaching either the State of Karnataka or the Supreme Court for clarification would not arise. 35. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for both the parties have taken us through the various provisions of the Code touching upon the subject and both of them contend that all these provisions have to be harmoniously interpreted and then the legal effect is to be seen. 36. In fact, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RESERVE BANK OF INDIA vs PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED [( 1987 (1) SCC 424 ] where it has been held as under : "33. Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They are the basis of interpretation. One may well say if the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted. With this knowledge, the statute must be read, first as a whole and then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word. If a statute is looked at, in the context of its enactment, with the glasses of the statutemaker, provided by such context, its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and words may take colour and appear different than when the statute is looked at without the glasses provided by the context. With these glasses we must look at the Act as a whole and discover what each section, each clause, each phrase and each word is meant and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act. No part of a statute and no word of a statute can be construed in isolation. Statutes have to be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its place." 37. Again the Apex Court in the case of ANWAR HASAN KHAN vs MOHD. SHAFI [ (2001) 8 SCC 540 ] has held as under: "8. No part of a statute and no word of a statute can be construed in isolation. Statutes have to be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its place." 37. Again the Apex Court in the case of ANWAR HASAN KHAN vs MOHD. SHAFI [ (2001) 8 SCC 540 ] has held as under: "8. ….It is a cardinal principle of construction of a statute that effort should be made in construing its provisions by avoiding a conflict and adopting a harmonious construction. The statute or rules made thereunder should be read as a whole and one provision should be construed with reference to the other provision to make the provision consistent with the object sought to be achieved." 38. Referring to the aforesaid two judgments, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of PRAKASH KUMAR vs STATE OF GUJARAT [ (2005) 2 SCC 409 ] held as under : “30. By now it is well settled Principle of Law that no part of a statute and no word of a statute can be construed in isolation. Statutes have to be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its place. It is also trite that the statute or rules made thereunder should be read as a whole and one provision should be construed with reference to the other provision to make the provision consistent with the object sought to be achieved.” 39. In the background of the statement of law by the Apex Court, when we are called upon to construe the various provisions in the statute harmoniously, it is necessary to look at the said provisions. 40. Section 24 of the Code deals with Public Prosecutors and 25 deals with Assistant Public Prosecutors. In this context it is necessary to know the meaning of the word ‘Public Prosecutor’ as it is defined under Section 2(u) of the Code. It reads as under: “2(u) “Public Prosecutor” means any person appointed under section 24, and includes any person acting under the directions of a Public Prosecutor. 41. Section 24 of the Code reads as under: “24. Public Prosecutors. It reads as under: “2(u) “Public Prosecutor” means any person appointed under section 24, and includes any person acting under the directions of a Public Prosecutor. 41. Section 24 of the Code reads as under: “24. Public Prosecutors. (1) For every High Court, the Central Government or the State Government shall, after consultation with the High Court, appoint a Public Prosecutor and may also appoint one or more Additional Public Prosecutors, for conducting in such Court, any prosecution, appeal or other proceeding on behalf of the Central Government or State Government, as the case may be. (2) The Central Government may appoint one or more Public Prosecutors for the purpose of conducting any case or class of cases in any district or local area. (3) For every district, the State Government shall appoint a Public Prosecutor and may also appoint one or more Additional Public Prosecutors for the district: Provided that the Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor appointed for one district may be appointed also to be a Public Prosecutor or an Additional Public Prosecutor, as the case may be, for another district. (4) The District Magistrate shall, in consultation with the Sessions Judge, prepare a panel of names of persons, who are, in his opinion fit to be appointed as Public Prosecutors or Additional Public Prosecutors for the district. (5) No person shall be appointed by the State Government as the Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor for the district unless his name appears in the panel of names prepared by the District Magistrate under subsection (4). (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (5), where in a State there exists a regular Cadre of Prosecuting Officers, the State Government shall appoint a Public Prosecutor or an Additional Public Prosecutor only from among the persons constituting such Cadre: Provided that where, in the opinion of the State Government, no suitable person is available in such Cadre for such appointment that Government may appoint a person as Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor, as the case may be, from the panel of names prepared by the District Magistrate under subsection (4). Explanation – For the purposes of this Sub-Section, a) “Regular Cadre of Prosecuting Officers” means a Cadre of Prosecuting Officers which includes therein the post of a Public Prosecutor, by whatever name called, and which provides for promotion of Assistant Public Prosecutors, by whatever name called, to that post; b) “Prosecuting Officer” means a person, by whatever name called, appointed to perform the functions of a Public Prosecutor, an Additional Public Prosecutor Prosecutor under subsection (1) or subsection or an Assistant Public Prosecutor under this Code. (7) A person shall be eligibl e to be appointed as a Public Prosecutor or an Additional Public (2) or subsection (3) or subsection (6), only if he has been in practice as an advocate for not less than seven years. (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. Provided that the Court may permit the victim to engage an advocate of his choice to assist the prosecution under this subsection. (9) For the purposes of subsection (7) and subsection (8), the period during which a person has been in practice as a pleader, or has rendered (whether before or after the commencement of this Code) service as a Public Prosecutor or as an Additional Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor or other Prosecuting Officer, by whatever name called, shall be deemed to be the period during which such person has been in practice as an advocate.” 42. Section 25 of the Code reads as under: “25. Assistant Public Prosecutors. (1) The State Government shall appoint in every district one or more Assistant Public Prosecutors for conducting prosecutions in the Courts of Magistrates. (1A) The Central Government may appoint one or more Assistant Public Prosecutors for the purpose of conducting any case or class of cases in the Courts of Magistrates. (2) Save as otherwise provided in subsection (3), no police officer shall be eligible to be appointed as an Assistant Public Prosecutor. (1A) The Central Government may appoint one or more Assistant Public Prosecutors for the purpose of conducting any case or class of cases in the Courts of Magistrates. (2) Save as otherwise provided in subsection (3), no police officer shall be eligible to be appointed as an Assistant Public Prosecutor. (3) Where no Assistant Public Prosecutor is available for the purposes of any particular case, the District Magistrate may appoint any other person to be the Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of that case; Provided that a police officer shall not be so appointed (a) if he has taken any part in the investigation into the offence with respect to which the accused being prosecuted; or (b) if he is below the rank of Inspector. 43. This Section has been the subject matter of interpretation by the Apex Court in the case of JAYENDRA SARASWATI SWAMIGAL, referred to supra. The Supreme Court interpreting the said Section held as under: “10. … Section 24 deals with the appointment of Public Prosecutors. "Public Prosecutor" has been defined under Section 2(u) of the Cr.P.C. 11. Section 24 (1) deals with the appointment of Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor for conducting any prosecution, appeal or other proceedings on behalf of the Central Government or State Government in the High Court. Subsection (3) of Section 24 requires that for every district, the State Government shall appoint a Public Prosecutor and one or more Additional Public Prosecutors. Subsections (3) to (7) deal with the appointment of Public Prosecutor, Additional Public Prosecutor for the district. The power of appointment is given to the State Government and such appointment should be from a panel of names prepared by the District Magistrate in consultation with the Sessions Judge. Subsection (7) of Section 24 provides that a person shall be eligible to be appointed as a Public Prosecutor or as an Additional Public Prosecutor under subsection (1) or subsection (2) or subsection (3) or subsection (6) only if he has been in practice as an advocate for not less than seven years. A conjoint reading of all these provisions would clearly show that the State Government has the power of appointment of Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor for each district or court of Sessions in the sessions division in the State to conduct any prosecution, appeal or other proceedings pending before the courts in that State. A conjoint reading of all these provisions would clearly show that the State Government has the power of appointment of Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor for each district or court of Sessions in the sessions division in the State to conduct any prosecution, appeal or other proceedings pending before the courts in that State. The power of the State Government to appoint a Public Prosecutor and Additional Public Prosecutor would extend only for conducting any prosecution, appeal or other proceedings in the courts within the State. 12. As per the procedure prescribed under Section 24, the State of Tamil Nadu can appoint a Public Prosecutor to conduct criminal cases in any of the court in that State. Such powers cannot be exercised by the State Government to conduct cases in any other State. Once the case is transferred as per Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. to another State, the transferor State no longer has control over the prosecution to be conducted in a court situated in a different State to which the case has been transferred. It is the prerogative of the State Government to appoint a Public Prosecutor to conduct the case which is pending in the sessions division of that State. 13 Of course, this Court while passing order of transfer, can give an appropriate direction as to which State should appoint the Public Prosecutor to conduct that particular case. Such orders are passed having regard to the circumstances of the case and the grounds on which the transfer has been effected. This Court can certainly give directions irrespective of the provisions contained in Section 24 of the Cr.P.C. But so far as this case is concerned, nothing had been stated in the order of the transfer. The provisions contained in Section 24 of Cr.P.C. shall prevail and it is for the appropriate State Government within whose area the trial is conducted to appoint Public Prosecutor under subsections (3) to (7) of Section 24 of the Cr.P.C. 44. It is in this background, when we look at this provision, it is clear that Section 24 (1) confers power on the Central Government and the State Government to appoint a Public Prosecutor and also one or more Additional Public Prosecutors for every High Court, for conducting in such Court, any prosecution, appeal or other proceeding on their behalf. It is in this background, when we look at this provision, it is clear that Section 24 (1) confers power on the Central Government and the State Government to appoint a Public Prosecutor and also one or more Additional Public Prosecutors for every High Court, for conducting in such Court, any prosecution, appeal or other proceeding on their behalf. Similarly, subsection (3) confers power on the State Government to appoint a Public Prosecutor and also one or more Additional Public Prosecutor for the District. Section 25 empowers the State Government to appoint in every District one or more Assistant Public Prosecutors for conducting prosecutions in the Courts of the Magistrates. Therefore, the statute provides for the appointment of Assistant Public Prosecutors for the Magistrate Court, the Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor for the District, and also Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor for the High Court. All these appointments are for the Courts. Once such appointment is made, they get authority for conducting in “such Court”, any prosecution, appeal or other proceeding on behalf of the Government. The qualification prescribed for being eligible for such appointment is not less than seven years of practice as an advocate. 45. Subsection (8) of Section 24 of the Code deals with appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor for conducting any case or class of cases. The reason is obvious. Under Section 24(1) of the Code, a Public Prosecutor appointed to the High Court would be dealing with number of cases. Similarly, the Public Prosecutor appointed to the District Court also would be dealing with number of cases. On such appointment to the Court any matter entrusted to them, they are competent to handle. Thus they will be handling number of cases pending in such Courts, at any given point of time. However, if a case of public importance is tried in that Court, they may not be able to exclusively deal with such case, because they are entrusted with number of cases in that Court. Therefore, statute provides for appointment of Special Public Prosecutor for such cases of public importance. Section 24 (8) of the Code provides for appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor for the purpose of any case or class of cases. Therefore, statute provides for appointment of Special Public Prosecutor for such cases of public importance. Section 24 (8) of the Code provides for appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor for the purpose of any case or class of cases. This is a provision which enables the State and Central Government to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor to a case or class of cases, which is of public importance, where special skill and knowledge is required. That is why the qualification prescribed for such appointment is that he has a practice as an Advocate for not less than ten years. Therefore, statute makes a clear distinction between appointment of a Public Prosecutor to a Court and to a case. Once such appointment is made, then what is the authority and duty, which flows from such appointment is to be seen. That is spelt out in Section 301 of the Code. Section 301 of the Code reads as under : “301. Appearance by Public Prosecutors. (1) The Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may appear and plead without any written authority before any Court in which that case is under inquiry, trial or appeal. (2) If in any such case, any private person instructs a pleader to prosecute any person in any Court, the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case shall conduct the prosecution, and the pleader so instructed shall act therein under the directions of the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor, and may, with the permission of the Court, submit written arguments after the evidence is closed in the case. 46. From the wording of the aforesaid provision it is clear that, the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may appear and plead without any written authority before any Court in which that case is under inquiry, trial or appeal. If a Public Prosecutor is appointed to the High Court or to the District Court or in terms of Section 25 in the Court of Magistrates and they are put in charge of a case in the Court where the said case is pending. They may appear and plead without any written authority. If any matter is entrusted which is pending in that Court, then he would be in charge of that case. They may appear and plead without any written authority. If any matter is entrusted which is pending in that Court, then he would be in charge of that case. Then he can appear in that case, whether it is under inquiry, trial or appeal without any written authority. When a Public Prosecutor is appointed to the High Court or to the District Court or before a Magistrate, normally he is expected to appear and plead for a case in a Court to which he is so appointed. But, the legislature has used the word, he can appear and plead before “any Court” and not “the Court” in which that case is under inquiry, trial or appeal. The importance and meaning to be attached to the word “any Court” cannot be lost sight of. 47. It is well settled that we must look at the Act as a whole and discover what each Section, each clause, each phrase and each word is meant and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act. No part of a statute and no word of a statute can be construed in isolation. Statutes have to be construed so that every word has a place and every thing is in its place. The language employed is that Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may appear and plead before “any Court”, in which that case is under enquiry, trial or appeal. If the intention of the legislature was to confine his appearance only to the Court in which the case is under enquiry, trial or appeal, they would have used the word “the Court” in place of “any Court”. Therefore, the intention is clear and unambiguous. Once the Special Public Prosecutor is appointed to a case, and is put in charge of a case, then he may appear and plead without any written authority before “any Court” in which that case, which is entrusted to him, is under enquiry, trial or appeal. 48. If a Public Prosecutor is appointed under Section 24(1) or (3) and Section 25 of the Code and placed in charge of a case, then by virtue of such appointment and entrustment as a Public Prosecutor, he may appear in Court in which that case is under inquiry, trial or appeal. 48. If a Public Prosecutor is appointed under Section 24(1) or (3) and Section 25 of the Code and placed in charge of a case, then by virtue of such appointment and entrustment as a Public Prosecutor, he may appear in Court in which that case is under inquiry, trial or appeal. However, when he is appointed under Section 24 (8) of the Code as Special Public Prosecutor he is appointed for the purposes of any case or class of cases. Section 301 of the Code makes it clear that, when he is in charge of a case, he may appear in “any Court” in which that case is under inquiry, trial or appeal. Therefore, a harmonious reading of these provisions makes it clear that a Public Prosecutor appointed under Section 24 or under Section 25 of the Code, though his appearance is normally confined to the Court to which he is appointed, Section 301 of the Code authorizes him to appear in “any Court” in which that case is under inquiry, trial or appeal. 49. Therefore, as held by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments, when the Code meticulously provides for appointment of Public Prosecutors to the High Court, District Court, Magistrate Court and Special Public Prosecutor for a case, and under Section 301 of the Code it declares that Special Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may appear and plead without any written authority before “any Court” in which the case is under inquiry, trial or appeal, it only means once he is entrusted with a case, he is put in charge of the case till that said case ultimately reaches a finality either by way of discharge, conviction or by way of acquittal, he is entitled to appear and plead without any written authority. A conviction or acquittal by a trial Court is only a step amongst the several steps in which a criminal case has to pass through. These statutory provisions have to be read as a whole and one provision should be construed with reference to the other provision to make the provision consistent with the object sought to be achieved. Otherwise, the word ‘any Court’ used in Section 301 would become redundant. When a Special Public Prosecutor is appointed to a case, he has a right to appear during inquiry, during trial and also during appeal. Otherwise, the word ‘any Court’ used in Section 301 would become redundant. When a Special Public Prosecutor is appointed to a case, he has a right to appear during inquiry, during trial and also during appeal. He is not appointed to any Court but appointed to a case. When a criminal case has to pass through the stages of inquiry, trial or appeal, by virtue of his appointment, when he is incharge of a case he has a right to appear and plead without any written authority before any Court in which that case in whatever stage is pending. 50. In fact, the Apex Court interpreting Section 301 of the Code in the case of SHIV KUMAR vs HUKAM CHAND AND OTHERS [ 1999 (7) SCC 467 ] held as under: “In the backdrop of the above provisions we have to understand the purport of Section 301 of the Code. Unlike its succeeding provision in the Code, the application of which is confined to magistrate courts, this particular section is applicable to all the courts of criminal jurisdiction. This distinction can be discerned from employment of the words any court in Section 301. In view of the provision made in the succeeding section as for magistrate courts the insistence contained in Section 301(2) must be understood as applicable to all other courts without any exception. The first subsection empowers the Public Prosecutor to plead in the court without any written authority, provided he is in charge of the case….”. 51. In this context it was submitted that, when the legislature has used the word ‘case’ it has to be confined to the Court in which the case is pending. ‘A case’ is different from ‘appeal’. Relying on the word ‘in which that case is under inquiry, trial or appeal’ it was argued that when he is appointed to conduct a trial or appeal in a particular Court, his appearance is to be confined to that Court. When that case is over in that Court, his appointment comes to an end. He has no right to appear and plead in the Court in which the appeal is preferred or pending. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the meaning of the word ‘case’ used in the Code. 52. When that case is over in that Court, his appointment comes to an end. He has no right to appear and plead in the Court in which the appeal is preferred or pending. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the meaning of the word ‘case’ used in the Code. 52. The Apex Court in a case arising from this Court in the case of BHIMAPPA BASAPPA BHU SANNAVAR vs LAXMAN SHIVARAYAPPA SAMAGOUDA AND OTHERS [ AIR 1970 SC 1153 ] held as under : “8. ……… The word 'case' is not defined by the Code but its meaning is well understood in legal circles. In criminal jurisdiction means ordinarily a proceeding for the prosecution of a person alleged to 'have committed in offence. In other contexts the word may represent other kinds of proceedings but in the context of the subsection it must mean a proceeding which at the end results either in discharge, conviction, or acquittal of an accused person.” 53. Relying on this judgment, the Apex Court in the case of MANSOOR AND OTHERS vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [ 1971 (2) SCC 369 ] held as under: “13. Finally the counsel laid stress on the submission that the ,appeal in the High Court was incompetent because the Additional Government Advocate who had presented the appeal was not ,the Public Prosecutor. The Gazette Notification to which our attention has been drawn shows that Mr. Dubey, the Additional Government Advocate, was notified as Public Prosecutor for the High Court in respect of the cases arising in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The counsel raised an ingenious argument, namely, that Mr. Dubey could not be considered to be a Public Prosecutor for presenting appeals in the High Court against orders of acquittal, because the appeal could not be described as a case, which arose in the High Court in which eventuality alone, he would act as a Public Prosecutor. The argument has merely to be stated to be rejected. The counsel tried to seek support from a decision of this Court reported as Bhiniappa Bassappa Bhu Sannavat v. Laxman Shivrayappa Samagouda and others. In this decision it was said that the word "case" which is not defined by the Code of Criminal Procedure is well understood in legal circles and it ordinarily means a proceeding for the prosecution of a person alleged to have committed an offence. In this decision it was said that the word "case" which is not defined by the Code of Criminal Procedure is well understood in legal circles and it ordinarily means a proceeding for the prosecution of a person alleged to have committed an offence. It was added that in other contexts this word may represent other kinds of proceedings. But in the context of S. 417(3) the Court said it must mean a proceeding which at the end results either in discharge, conviction, or acquittal of an accused person. If anything, this decision goes against the appellants' contention. The case resulting in the acquittal of the accused persons would clearly be a case arising in the State and within the contemplation of the notification, and the Additional Government Advocate who is the Public Prosecutor for the High Court would be entitled to present the appeal in such a case”. 54. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of VARJIWAN P SETH vs RATANLAL JAHOTIA AND ANOTHER [AIR 1964 SC 59] in the context of the word ‘case’ used in Section 193 explained the meaning of the word ‘case’ as under: “7. It would, therefore, be useful to try to understand the meaning of the words "cases" and 'trial' used in Subsection (2) of Section 193. The word 'cases' has no fixed or universal meaning. It must be construed with regard to the particular context in which it is used and with regard to the scheme and purpose of the measure concerned. That word is, in my opinion, broader and wider than the words "trial of offences". I make no attempt to fasten any formal definition of the word 'cases' which, occurs in Section 193 (2). I would only note that it is a word of wide or comprehensive import and clearly covers far larger area than would be covered by such words as 'appeal', 'revision' or 'trial of offences'. There is, therefore, in my opinion, nothing incongruous or repugnant in holding that the word 'case' may cover a petition filed under Section 528 of the Code before the Sessions Judge. This word quite often is used in the Code with an intention to give it a wider meaning. It undoubtedly differs from the word 'appeal' or revision'. There is, therefore, in my opinion, nothing incongruous or repugnant in holding that the word 'case' may cover a petition filed under Section 528 of the Code before the Sessions Judge. This word quite often is used in the Code with an intention to give it a wider meaning. It undoubtedly differs from the word 'appeal' or revision'. Nevertheless it retains its broader meaning in reference to ail other matters which are not called as 'appeal' or 'revision', trial of offence being only a section of the various cases which are contemplated by the Code. The word 'case' has been held to be comprehensive enough to include proceedings under Section 107 of the Code….” 55. The word ‘case’ is not defined in the Code. It is a word of wide and comprehensive import. The word ‘case’ cannot be equated to the words ‘trial’, ‘appeal’ or ‘revision’. It clearly covers for larger area than would be covered by such words as ‘appeal’, ‘revision’ or ‘trial’ or ‘offences’. When the word ‘case’ is used with reference to a criminal case, it encompasses the various stages of a criminal case i.e., Investigation/inquiry, trial and appeal. A criminal case commences with the filing of an FIR and registration of the case and comes to an end when the judgment is delivered discharging or acquitting or convicting the accused, when that judgment attains finality. In other words, after trial the accused is acquitted or convicted, the trial comes to an end and not the criminal case. Trial of a case is only one step in the life of a criminal case. Criminal case encompasses investigation/inquiry, trial and appeal. They are all different stages in a criminal case. The word ‘case’ has no fixed or universal meaning. It must be construed with regard to the particular context in which it is used and with regard to the scheme and purpose of the measure concerned. This word is quite often used in the Code with an intention to give a wider meaning. That is the reason why in Section 301 the legislature has consciously used the word, that the Public Prosecutor “in charge of a case” may appear and plead before any Court in which “that case is under inquiry, trial or appeal”. This word is quite often used in the Code with an intention to give a wider meaning. That is the reason why in Section 301 the legislature has consciously used the word, that the Public Prosecutor “in charge of a case” may appear and plead before any Court in which “that case is under inquiry, trial or appeal”. In other words, if a Public Prosecutor is appointed to conduct a case, he is entitled to appear and plead without any written authority before any Court in which that case is under inquiry, trial or appeal. Therefore, the words “any Court” used in this Section enables the Public Prosecutor to appear in all Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction and it is not confined to the Court to which he is appointed. The only condition to be satisfied is that he should be put in charge of the case after his appointment as a Public Prosecutor. It is altogether different, if by a rule, regulation, practice, when once he is appointed as a Public Prosecutor to a Court, he may not appear in another Court. Therefore, the Legislature has consciously used the words “may appear and plead”. It is left to his discretion. 56. Therefore, when a Special Public Prosecutor is appointed by the State under Section 24 (8) of the Code for the purposes of any case and on such appointment he is put in charge of a case, Section 301 of the Code empowers him to appear and plead without any written authority before any Court in which that case is under inquiry, trial or appeal. As otherwise, the State has to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor at every stage of a criminal case. In the scheme of the Code that is not contemplated. When a Public Prosecutor is appointed to a High Court under Section 24(1), to District Court under Section 24(3), to the Magistrate Court under Section 24(5) of the Code, the Public Prosecutor so appointed would be incharge of a case which has been entrusted to him in that Court. Therefore, as every Court has a Public Prosecutor, after trial when there is an order of conviction or acquittal, when the appeal is provided and appeal is preferred, it is the Public Prosecutor who is in the Appellate Court would prosecute the matter. Therefore, as every Court has a Public Prosecutor, after trial when there is an order of conviction or acquittal, when the appeal is provided and appeal is preferred, it is the Public Prosecutor who is in the Appellate Court would prosecute the matter. Similarly, if the appeal had to be prosecuted in the High Court, the Public Prosecutor appointed under Section 24(1) of the Code would prosecute the matter. But, that does not mean that the person who is entrusted with the case, who is appointed under Section 24 or 25 of the Code is not authorized to prosecute that case in “any Court” that is under inquiry. He has such power. By practice, by virtue of the appointment made in Section 24(1) of the Code, the Public Prosecutor attached to that Court would prosecute the case. But, a Special Public Prosecutor appointed under Section 24 (8) of the Code to a case and not to a Court where experience of not less than 10 years of practice as an Advocate is insisted upon, such Public Prosecutor not only is capable of conducting trial at the lowest level he is equally competent to prosecute the case in appeal or revision. During trial, if on an interlocutory order, a revision is filed either by the accused or to be filed by the State, if the interpretation canvassed by the appellant is to be accepted, the Special Public Prosecutor appointed under Section 24(8) of the Code cannot without a fresh appointment under Section 24(8) of the Code appear in that revisional Court. To appear in the revisional Court, one more order under Section 24 (8) of the Code has to be made. That is not the intention of the legislature. 57. Therefore, the Public Prosecutor was appointed to conduct CC No. 7/1997 and C.C. No. 2/2001. No doubt it is mentioned in the brackets as regarding trial of Ms. Jayalalitha and others in the State of Karnataka. It was contended relying on the said words that the Public Prosecutor was appointed only for the purpose of conducting trial and, therefore, the Public Prosecutor so appointed becomes functus officio with the conclusion of the trial. The language employed in the notification is unambiguous. The Public Prosecutor is appointed to conduct CC No. 7/1997 and CC No. 2/2001. It was contended relying on the said words that the Public Prosecutor was appointed only for the purpose of conducting trial and, therefore, the Public Prosecutor so appointed becomes functus officio with the conclusion of the trial. The language employed in the notification is unambiguous. The Public Prosecutor is appointed to conduct CC No. 7/1997 and CC No. 2/2001. As the name of the parties were not mentioned, in the brackets it is mentioned as regarding trial of Ms. Jayalalitha and others in the State of Karnataka. Not that the Public Prosecutor is appointed only for the purpose of the trial of the said case. However, in the subsequent notification appointing 5th respondent in the brackets it is mentioned, in the case of Kum. Jayalalitha and others. Therefore, 5th respondent is appointed as Special Public Prosecutor in the case of Kum. Jayalalitha and others. Accordingly, the 5th respondent by virtue of Section 301(1) of the Code is entitled to appear and plead in the appeals pending in the High Court in the case of Kum. Jayalalitha and others, without any written authority. 58. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, as the State Government has already appointed a Public Prosecutor under Section 24 (1) of the Code to the High Court of Karnataka, the question of this Court issuing any direction to the State of Karnataka to appoint a Public Prosecutor under Section 24(1) of the Code would not arise. 59. In so far as appointment of Special Public Prosecutor under Section 24 (8) of the Code is concerned, the State of Karnataka has appointed the fifth respondent as a Public Prosecutor. In fact, the attempt on the part of the State to withdraw the appointment has been nullified by the Apex Court and his appointment has been restored. Therefore, the appointment is in pursuance and in obedience to the directions issued by the Supreme Court under Section 406 of the Code. Therefore, the question of appointing yet another Special Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State of Karnataka in the pending appeals would not arise. If the State of Karnataka wants to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor in place of the fifth respondent, first the appointment of the fifth respondent is to be terminated, then only they can think of making a fresh appointment. If the State of Karnataka wants to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor in place of the fifth respondent, first the appointment of the fifth respondent is to be terminated, then only they can think of making a fresh appointment. Therefore, the question of issuing any direction to make an appointment under Section 24 (8) of the Code to the State Government also would not arise. In that view of the matter, we do not see any merit in this appeal. 60. In fact, what weighed with the learned single Judge in rejecting the Writ Petition is the direction issued by the Apex Court that the Appeal should be heard on day to day basis and it should be disposed of within 3 months, any order to be passed by this Court which would come in the way of the disposal of the said Appeal in terms of the direction of the Supreme Court should be avoided. In fact, it is settled law that, any proceedings arising out of the Prevention of Corruption Act, time and again the Apex Court is reiterating that the trial should not hamper by way of any interim orders by the High Court. It equally applies to these proceedings also. That is why we cannot find fault with the approach of the learned single Judge if he has just followed the law declared by the Apex Court. 61. However, respondents contended that the appellant has no locus standi to maintain this Writ Appeal. As we have decided the case on a pure question of law and we are dismissing the Appeal, we have not gone into the said question of locus standi which we are leaving it to be decided in any appropriate case. 62. It is submitted that, in the appeals, the State of Karnataka itself is not made a party and, therefore, appeals are not properly instituted. That is a matter to be decided by the Court which is dealing with the Appeal and that cannot be the subject matter of this proceeding. It is also submitted that, it is brought to the notice of the said Court that the fifth respondent who is representing the investigating agency of Tamil Nadu is not competent to represent them and the said memo is not considered. It is also submitted that, it is brought to the notice of the said Court that the fifth respondent who is representing the investigating agency of Tamil Nadu is not competent to represent them and the said memo is not considered. Again that is a matter to be decided by the Court before whom the memo is filed and that cannot be the subject matter of this proceeding. Under these circumstances, we do not see any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.