Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 228 (MP)

Shravan Kumar P. Patel v. State of M. P.

2015-02-24

S.K.GANGELE

body2015
ORDER 1. This petition has been filed against the order dated 23.6.2013, (Annexure P-4) and the dated 2.9.2013, (Annexure P-5). By the aforesaid order dated 2.9.2013, the respondent No.5, Subdha D. Khott, (Advocate) has been appointed as Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner in this petition that the Special Public Prosecutor has been appointed on the request of the complainant. Earlier Shri Jain was the Public Prosecutor and no reason has been assigned that why he has been replaced by another Special Public Prosecutor. It is further submitted that Special Public Prosecutor is from Mumbai and the complainant is also from Mumbai, hence there would be a bias against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the complainant made an application to the State for appointment of Special Public Prosecutor. The respondent No.5, Subdha D. Khott (Advocate). It was also mentioned in the application that the complainant was willing to pay the fee of the Special Public Prosecutor, hence the Special Public Prosecutor would not act independently. 3. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Magistrate has not given any reason for engagement of another Special Public Prosecutor. 4. section 24 (8) of CrPC prescribes appointment of Public Prosecutor. The relevant provision is as under :- “section 24 (8) The Central Government or the State Government may appoint, for the purposes of any case or class or cases, a person who has been in practice as an advocate for not less then ten years as a Special Public Prosecutor.” 5. From perusal of the aforesaid section, it is clear that the State Government has a liberty to appoint for the purpose of any case or class of cases a person who has been practicing as an Advocate for not less than ten years as Special Public Prosecutor. In the present case, it is not the objection that the Special Public Prosecutor so appointed was not in practice for less than ten years. The apprehension of the petitioner that because the Special Public Prosecutor belongs to Mumbai, hence she may act against the petitioner and she may secure conviction of the petitioner. In my opinion, this apprehension of the petitioner is ill founded and there is no evidence in this regard in the case. The counsel who represents a particular party acts accordingly. The apprehension of the petitioner that because the Special Public Prosecutor belongs to Mumbai, hence she may act against the petitioner and she may secure conviction of the petitioner. In my opinion, this apprehension of the petitioner is ill founded and there is no evidence in this regard in the case. The counsel who represents a particular party acts accordingly. The result of the case depends on the evidence which may be produced during the trial. The petitioner is competent to engage any lawyer of his choice. He may very well defend the case. This is not the case where the petitioner cannot defend himself positively or adequately. Apart from this earlier there were litigations in the case. The complaint case is of the year 2011. Now four years have passed and even charges have not been framed in the case. I have gathered the impression that the petitioner anyhow wants to prolong the litigation. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following judgments (a) (1999)7 SCC 467 , (Shiv Kumar v. Hukum Chand and another), (b) 2010(6) SCC 1 , (Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi). This Court has no dispute on the principles laid down in those judgments. But the aforesaid case laws and the principle laid down in the judgments do not support the petitioner. The case law in (Paras Kumar Jain another v. State of M.P. and another), reported in 2012(3) MPLJ 223, also does not support the petitioner in view of the facts mentioned in para 17 of the judgment. The Court passed the order on each and every interlocutory stage, the writ petition is not maintainable, when the trial is going on. The petition can only be entertained, if there is serious flaw in the trial or there is total non compliance of the mandatory provisions of CrPC. This is not the presence case, hence in my opinion, the writ petition against the order at this stage is not maintainable. If during the trial, the petitioner feels that there is any apprehension to the petitioner about the conduct of special Public Prosecutor, he may take objections in this regard at the appropriate stage. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is disposed of. 7. No order as to costs. .....................