Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 426 (MP)

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

2015-04-15

A.M.KHANWILKAR, ROHIT ARYA

body2015
ORDER 1. This is an intra Court appeal against the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 24.2.2015, in Writ Petition No.15779/2014 [reported in 2015(II) MPWN 23 ]. The learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition which questioned the appointment of one Subdha D. Khott (Advocate) of Mumbai as special Public Prosecutor to appear in Sessions Case No.281/2012 pending before the Court of 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur. 2. The learned Single Judge has negative the argument of the appellant that by appointing special Public Prosecutor of the choice of the complainant from Mumbai would cause hardship and prejudice to the appellant. So far as that finding is concerned, we find no reason to deviate there from and affirm the same. 3. The second argument which according to the appellant was the principal argument advanced before the learned Single Judge was that the order dated 2.9.2013 as challenged in the writ petition was bereft of any reason, therefore, unsustainable. This contention was buttressed by relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mukul Dalal and others v. Union of India and others [ (1988)3 SCC 144 ], and in particular direct decision on the point by leaned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Paras Kumar Jain and another v. State of M.P. and others [2012(3) MPLJ 223]. 4. No doubt, the learned Single Judge has distinguished the decision in the case of Paras Kumar Jain (supra), with reference to the observations in Paragraph No.17 of the judgment. It is, however, argued that the appellant had relied upon another judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Poonamchand Jain v. State of M.P. and others [ 2001(2) MPLJ 61 ], which specifically deals with the matter in issue. 5. In response, counsel for the private respondent has invited our attention to the order dated 18.12.2012 passed by the State Government, which in turn, declares the decision of the State Government to appoint a special Public Prosecutor in the stated case as requested by the complainant. That decision has remained unaltered and the effect of order dated 2.9.2013 is limited only to nominating another special Public Prosecutor from Mumbai in place of earlier special Public Prosecutor Mr. Siddharth Agrawal from Delhi. That, in principle decision taken by the State Government, therefore, remained unchallenged and has been acquiesced of. 6. That decision has remained unaltered and the effect of order dated 2.9.2013 is limited only to nominating another special Public Prosecutor from Mumbai in place of earlier special Public Prosecutor Mr. Siddharth Agrawal from Delhi. That, in principle decision taken by the State Government, therefore, remained unchallenged and has been acquiesced of. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, submits that there is no need to challenge the decision dated 18.12.2012 as that stands cancelled in terms of the impugned order dated 2.9.2013. We, however, find merits in the arguments of the private respondent that the meaning of expression “Nirast” in order dated 2.9.2013 must be understood to mean that the State Government whilst reiterating the position stated in the earlier order dated 18.12.2012 has decided to engage another advocate to appear as a special Public Prosecutor in place of the previous advocate. In other words, the decision taken by the State Government in exercise of powers under section 24(8) of the CrPC is essentially taken as back as in December 2012, which has not been challenged by the appellant. The appellant had no objection to the Advocate from Delhi appearing as a special Public Prosecutor. For, the argument as was canvassed before the learned Single Judge, obviously, was about appointment of another Advocate as special Public Prosecutor “from Mumbai”, where the complainant is ordinarily residing. 7. Suffice it to observe that challenge to the order dated 2.9.2013 is bordering on an argument of desperation to delay and protract the trial of the criminal case which is pending from 2011 for framing of charges notwithstanding the appointment of special Public Prosecutor as back as in December 2012. In our opinion, it is not a case for interference in intra-Court appeal. 8. Accordingly, the same is rejected.