ORDER : Subramonium Prasad, J. (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, (a) directing the respondent No.1 and 2 to evolve appropriate schemes to protect the victims, their dependants and the witnesses in the criminal cases with regard to the alleged offences committed against the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as found in the Special Enactment and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and the Rules made there under. (b) directing the Respondent No.3 to evolve a scheme in the light of Chapter IV A of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and the Rules made there under. (c) directing the Respondents No.3,5,6,7 to enforce the mandatory provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and the Rules made there under to give full benefit of the Special Enactment. (d) directing the 4th respondent CBI to replace the Special Public Prosecutor Mr.T.Dominic Vijay, who he is representing the CBI in S.C.No.185 of 2010 before the Special Court (The Principal District and Sessions Court), Cuddalore by appointing an eminent senior Advocate to represent the CBI in the pending trial in S.C.No.185 of 2010 before the Special Court (The Principal District and Sessions Court), Cuddalore in the light of Rule IV(5) of the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. (e) constituting a Special Investigating Team (SIT) headed by an IPS officer who is known for integrity, efficiency and honest to investigate the matter relating to the First Information Report No.642 of 2017 pending investing on the file of the Inspector of Police, Virudhachalam Police Station in the light of the decision in R.Sankarasubbu Vs. Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai and another ( 2013 1 CTC 1 ) to investigate as per law. (f) directing the Trial Court, the Principal District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore to expedite the hearing of two M.P.s in MP.3851 of 2017 and M.P.No.4098 in S.C.No.185 of 2010 filed by M.Tamilarasi and Mayavel and T.Pattusamy respectively for cancelling the bail of four named accused (1) Maruthapandian (A2), (2) Kandavel (A6), (3) Jothi (A6), (4) Ramadoss (A12) under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Pending before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore. (g) directing the Trial Court, the Principal District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore to expedite the hearing of M.P.in M.P.4111 of 2017 in S.C.No.185 of 2010 filed by C.Samikannu for summoning his wife Chinnapillai as Court Witness under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., pending before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore. Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, (a) directing the respondents 1 and 3 to take steps to provide video camera in all Special Courts under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 in Tamilnadu in compliance with the Section 15A(10) of the SC and ST (PA) Act, 1989. (b) declaring that the proceeding of examination of Mrs.Chinnapillai (PW49) conducted on 18.12.2017 in S.C.No.185 of 2010 pending trial before the Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore is violating the rights of the victim and witness Mrs.Chinnapillai resulting in unfair trial, miscarriage of justice and she is entitled to give fresh evidence. (c) directing both the Bar Council of India and Tamilnadu and Puducherry to evolve a scheme to regulate the conduct of the Advocates while they are discharging their duties as Counsel in the proceedings before the Courts.) WP. No.25903 of 2017 has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus, (a) directing the respondent No.1 and 2 to evolve appropriate schemes to protect the victims, their dependants and the witnesses in the criminal cases with regard to the alleged offences committed against the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as found in the Special Enactment and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and the Rules made there under. (b) directing the Respondent No.3 to evolve a scheme in the light of Chapter IV A of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and the Rules made there under. (c) directing the Respondents No.3,5,6,7 to enforce the mandatory provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and the Rules made there under to give full benefit of the Special Enactment. (c) directing the Respondents No.3,5,6,7 to enforce the mandatory provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and the Rules made there under to give full benefit of the Special Enactment. (d) directing the 4th respondent CBI to replace the Special Public Prosecutor Mr.T.Dominic Vijay, who he is representing the CBI in S.C.No.185 of 2010 before the Special Court (The Principal District and Sessions Court), Cuddalore by appointing an eminent senior Advocate to represent the CBI in the pending trial in S.C.No.185 of 2010 before the Special Court (The Principal District and Sessions Court), Cuddalore in the light of Rule IV(5) of the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. (e) constituting a Special Investigating Team (SIT) headed by an IPS officer who is known for integrity, efficiency and honest to investigate the matter relating to the First Information Report No.642 of 2017 pending investing on the file of the Inspector of Police, Virudhachalam Police Station in the light of the decision in R.Sankarasubbu Vs. Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai and another ( 2013 1 CTC 1 ) to investigate as per law. (f) directing the Trial Court, the Principal District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore to expedite the hearing of two M.P.s in MP.3851 of 2017 and M.P.No.4098 in S.C.No.185 of 2010 filed by M.Tamilarasi and Mayavel and T.Pattusamy respectively for cancelling the bail of four named accused 1) Maruthapandian (A2), 2) Kandavel (A6), 3) Jothi (A6), 4) Ramadoss (A12) under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Pending before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore. (g) directing the Trial Court, the Principal District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore to expedite the hearing of M.P.in M.P.4111 of 2017 in S.C.No.185 of 2010 filed by C.Samikannu for summoning his wife Chinnapillai as Court Witness under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., pending before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore. 2. WP No.493 of 2018 has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus, (a) directing the respondents 1 and 3 to take steps to provide video camera in all Special Courts under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 in Tamilnadu in compliance with the Section 15A(10) of the SC and ST (PA) Act, 1989. (b) declaring that the proceeding of examination of Mrs.Chinnapillai (PW49) conducted on 18.12.2017 in S.C.No.185 of 2010 pending trial before the Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore is violating the rights of the victim and witness Mrs.Chinnapillai resulting in unfair trial, miscarriage of justice and she is entitled to give fresh evidence. (c) directing both the Bar Council of India and Tamilnadu and Puducherry to evolve a scheme to regulate the conduct of the Advocates while they are discharging their duties as Counsel in the proceedings before the Courts. 3. A Division Bench of this court on 27.09.2017, after hearing the parties passed the following order. Heard Mr.V.Prakash, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr.C.V.Ramachandramurthy, learned Central Government Standing Counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 & 2. Mr.C.Manisankar, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.R.Govindasamy, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents 3 & 6. Mr.K.Srinivasan, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases takes notice on behalf of the respondents 4 & 9. Mr.R.Rajarathinam, learned Public Prosecutor takes notice on behalf of the respondents 5, 7 & 26. 2. Notice to the other respondents returnable by 5.10.2017. Private notice is also permitted. 3. The petitioner has come forward with this public interest litigation petition seeking the following reliefs :- (a) Directing the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to evolve appropriate schemes to protect the victims, their dependents and the witnesses in the criminal cases with regard to the alleged offences committed against the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as found in the Special Enactment to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the Rules made thereunder. (b) Directing the Respondent No.3 to evolve a scheme in the light of Chapter IV A of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and the Rules made thereunder. (c) Directing the Respondent Nos.3, 5, 6, 7 to enforce the mandatory provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and the Rules made thereunder to give full benefit to the Special Enactment. (c) Directing the Respondent Nos.3, 5, 6, 7 to enforce the mandatory provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and the Rules made thereunder to give full benefit to the Special Enactment. (d) Directing the 4th Respondent CBI to replace the Special Public Prosecutor Mr.T.Dominic Vijay, who is representing the CBI in S.C.No.185 of 2010 before the Special Court (The Principal District and Sessions Court), Cuddalore by appointing an eminent senior Advocate to represent the CBI in the pending trial in S.C.No.185 of 2010 before the Special Court (The Principal District and Sessions Court), Cuddalore in the light of Rule IV(5) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules 1995. (e) Constituting a Special Investigating Team (SIT) headed by an IPS officer who is known for integrity, efficiency and honesty to investigate the matter relating to the First Information Report No.642 of 2017 pending investigation on the file of the Inspector of Police, Virudhachalam Police Station in the light of the decision in R.Sankarasubbu Vs Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai and another ( 2013 1 CTC 1 ) to investigate as per law. (f) Directing the Trial Court, the Principal District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore to expedite the hearing of two M.P.s in M.P.3851 of 2017 and M.P.No.4098 of 2017 in S.C.No.185 of 2010 filed by M.Tamilarasi and Mayavel and T.Pattusamy respectively for cancelling the bail of four named accused (1) Maruthapandian (A2), (2) Kandavel (A5) (3) Jothi (A6) (4) Ramadoss (A12) under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., pending before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore. (g) Directing the Trial Court, the Principal District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore to expedite the hearing of M.P.in M.P.4111 of 2017 in S.C.No.185 of 2010 filed by C.Samikannu for summoning his wife Chinnapillai as Court Witness under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., pending before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore. 4. According to the petitioner, who is an Advocate, one Mr.Murugesan belonging to Scheduled Caste community, married Kannagi belonging to a different community and that they got the marriage registered on 5.5.2003, without the knowledge of their parents or friends. Since it was an inter-caste marriage, with the help of a gang, these two persons were caught and taken in a Tata Sumo car and that Murugesan's hands and legs were tied with a rope. Since it was an inter-caste marriage, with the help of a gang, these two persons were caught and taken in a Tata Sumo car and that Murugesan's hands and legs were tied with a rope. The elder brother of Kannagi by name Maruthapandian administered poison to Kannagi and she died. Thereafter, several persons helped Maruthapandian to administer poison to Murugesan and he also died and both the bodies were burnt. 5. The further case of the petitioner is that a case has been registered and now it is pending before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore in S.C.No.185 of 2010. Due to the threatening made by the brother of Kannagi and others, several witnesses have turned hostile and one Selvaraj, who was to give evidence on 1.9.2017, had committed suicide on 31.8.2017, as he did not want to support the accused and want to tender evidence in favour of the prosecution. According to the petitioner, 36 witnesses have turned hostile in the case and that the prime witness, namely, Mrs.Chinnapillai, W/o C.Samikannu has not been shown as a witness. However, she has given a statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu mentioning the names of the persons who had administered poison and responsible for causing the death of Murugesan and Kannagi. Further, a petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., has been filed to summon Mrs.Chinnapillai as a Court Witness and the trial is posted on 3.10.2017 for recording the evidence of some more prosecution witnesses. 6. According to the petitioner, the witnesses have been threatened and that the accused initially had the benefit of bail, which was cancelled thereafter and they again obtained bail and now the cancellation of bail petitions are pending and that there is an order passed by this Court on 1.6.2017 in Criminal Revision Case No.716 of 2015 directing the trial in S.C.No.185 of 2010 to be completed within a period of four months and that the witnesses are being forced to turn hostile and unless and until the cancellation of bail petitions are decided and the accused are taken into custody, the witnesses may not be in a position to give the correct version before the trial Court. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the entire matter has to heard at length. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the entire matter has to heard at length. However, taking into consideration the fact that already an order has been passed by this Court on 1.6.2017 in Criminal Revision Case No.716 of 2015 directing the trial Court to proceed and complete the trial within a period of four months, as an interim measure, we direct the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore to hear the petitions in M.P.Nos.3851 and 4098 of 2017 filed by Mrs.M.Tamilarasi, Mr.Mayavel and Mr.T.Pattusamy respectively for cancellation of bail of the four accused, namely, M/s Maruthapandian, Kandavel, Jothi and Ramadoss along with the petition in M.P.No.4111 of 2017 filed by Mr.C.Samikannu under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., for summoning his wife Chinnapillai as a Court Witness, on a day-to-day basis and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law on or before 13.10.2017, so that finality is attained in these petitions. 8. With regard to the other reliefs, call the matter on 5.10.2017 for filing counter affidavits by the respondents. 4. On 03.01.2018 while directing the Registry to number the WP.Sr.No.129572 of 2017 [subsequently numbered as WP No.493 of 2018] and post alongwith WP No.25903 of 2017, this Court granted stay of further proceedings in S.C.No.185 of 2010, pending trial, before the learned principal District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore, for one week, and the interim order of stay stands extended, periodically. Relevant portion of the order reads thus: "9. Prosecution Witness 49/Mrs.Chinnapillai, has been examined on 18.12.2017. Cross examination has been done, by almost all the accused. Question is, whether the proceeding relating to the provision under this Act, when not video-graphed, prayer 'B', namely, "declaring that the proceeding of examination of Mrs.Chinnapiilai (PW.49) conducted on 18.12.2017 in S.C.No.185 of 2010, pending trial before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore, has to be answered as violating the rights of the victim and witness Mrs.Chinnapillai", resulting in unfair trial, miscarriage of justice, and whether she is entitled to give fresh evidence, is the issue which requires consideration. Prayer 'A' also requires consideration. 10. Prayer 'A' also requires consideration. 10. Taking note of the averments made in the supporting affidavit, submissions of Mr.V.Prakash, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Srinivasan, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, and in particular the directions of the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.P.No.25903 of 2017, dated 24.10.2017, extracted supra, and Section 15A (10) of Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, we are inclined to entertain the instant writ petition, and direct stay of further proceedings in S.C.No.185 of 2010, pending trial, before the learned principal District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore, for one week. 11. Registry is directed to number the writ petition. Earlier, a Public Interest writ petition, has been entertained by this Court. Both W.P.No.25903 of 2017 and the instant writ petition, are on the same set of facts. Therefore, joint hearing of both, would avoid multiplicity. Therefore, Registry is further directed to place the instant Writ Petition, as well as W.P.No.25903 of 2017, before My Lord the Hon'ble Chief Justice, High Court, Madras, for joint hearing." 5. Facts in this case narrated in brief are that (i) One Kannagi, belonging to Most Backward Community and Murugesan, Scheduled Caste Community, got married without the consent or knowledge of their respective families. They were living together as husband and wife. On 07.07.2003, about two months and four days after their marriage, Kannagi joined her husband; they were picked up by the relatives of Kannagi, administered poison and their bodies were burnt. This incident took place on 08.07.2003. FIR was registered in Virudhunagar Police Station in Cr.No.125 of 2003. On 17.07.2003, charge sheet was filed against eight accused. (ii) On the allegations that the investigations was a botched up investigation and that persons involved in the offence have not been arrested, Criminal Original Petition No.31572 of 2003, was filed in this Court, for change of investigating agency. This Court, by an order dated 22.04.2004, directed the investigation be transferred to CBI. The CBI took over the investigation. Charge sheet has been filed against 15 persons. Out of 15 persons, against whom charge sheet has been filed, two are retired police officers, eleven belong to most backward community and two are from scheduled caste community. The CBI appointed one Mr. T.Dominic Vijay, Advocate, as Public Prosecutor to conduct the trial. The trial started. Charge sheet has been filed against 15 persons. Out of 15 persons, against whom charge sheet has been filed, two are retired police officers, eleven belong to most backward community and two are from scheduled caste community. The CBI appointed one Mr. T.Dominic Vijay, Advocate, as Public Prosecutor to conduct the trial. The trial started. (iii) Pending trial, instant writ petition has been filed making allegations against the CBI, the way the trial is being conducted, etc. Pending writ petition, the petitioners have filed WMP No.30507 of 2017, for appointing on Mr.A.Rajaganapathy, Advocate, as Public Prosecutor in the trial. (iv) In writ petition No.25903 of 2017, the petitioner, who is admittedly a third party i.e. he is not a victim, has elaborately narrated the incident, which we do not go into detail, at this juncture. (v) The petitioner would state that the investigation by the local police of Virudhunagar Police Station was not fair. He has stated that since the investigation was not fair and charge sheet has been filed against persons who were not the accused, the real accused had been permitted to escape, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing an application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code and the same was numbered as Crl.O.P.No.31572 of 2003. This Court by order dated 22.04.2004, transferred the investigation to CBI. The CBI conducted the investigation. According to the petitioner investigation of CBI was also perfunctory. He states that the statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C were recorded in English, while the witnesses do not know English. It is stated that CBI has filed a charge sheet against 15 persons. Two of them are police personnel, eleven belong to Vanniyar community and two belong to scheduled caste community. (vi) It is stated that the two persons belonging to scheduled caste community has been falsely implicated and they are totally innocent. He has also stated that Mrs.Chinnapillai, sister-in-law of the deceased was not shown as an eye witness, which she was. (vii) It is also stated that CBI was also playing at the hands of the dominant community. The petitioner thereafter states that though they repeatedly represented to Mr.T.Dominic Vijay, learned Special Public Prosecutor, appointed by CBI, that two persons belonging to scheduled caste community are really innocent, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, has not accepted their request. (vii) It is also stated that CBI was also playing at the hands of the dominant community. The petitioner thereafter states that though they repeatedly represented to Mr.T.Dominic Vijay, learned Special Public Prosecutor, appointed by CBI, that two persons belonging to scheduled caste community are really innocent, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, has not accepted their request. The petitioner also criticises the action of the learned Prosecutor in treating PW16 as hostile witness. The petitioner has made allegations regarding the unfair approach of the learned Public Prosecutor in falsely implicating two accused, belonging to scheduled caste community. (viii) Reading of the entire petition would actually demonstrate the efforts of learned Advocate Mr.P.Rathinam in the conduct of the trial and as to how the learned Special Public Prosecutor is not adhering to his request. The entire petition is oriented towards, demonstrating that the two accused viz., A4 and A9 were not involved in the crime and that the learned Special Public Prosecutor, at the behest of the other community, is not accepting their pleas and is proceeding ahead in the trial. (ix) Pending WP No.25903 of 2017, another public interest writ petition i.e. W.P.No.493 of 2018 has been filed by an Advocate, who is again a third party. This petition is also primarily directed towards the manner in which the trial has been conducted and that how the two accused belonging to scheduled caste community are being prosecuted, even though they are innocent. (x) Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, SCB, Chennai, has filed the counter, denying the instances and explaining their stand on the allegations made by the petitioners, regarding the conduct of the trial, declaration of witnesses as hostile and also opposing the change of the Prosecutor. Counter affidavit reads thus. (a) Writ petition preferred by the petitioner is not maintainable, either on facts or law and the averments in the writ petition are false, baseless and devoid of merits. (b) The case is at the stage of nearing to the closing of prosecution evidence. The Special Public Prosecutor examined the Prosecution Witnesses and out of 81 Listed Witnesses, 48 Witnesses were examined. Further, Smt.Chinnapillai, W/o.Shir Samikannu (PW-1)/Step mother of the deceased Murugesan, whose confession statement was recorded u/sec. 164 (5) Cr.P.C. and the Investigating Officers are yet to be examined. (c) Writ Petitioner P.KI.Ilavarasu has no locus standi to prefer this writ petition. The Special Public Prosecutor examined the Prosecution Witnesses and out of 81 Listed Witnesses, 48 Witnesses were examined. Further, Smt.Chinnapillai, W/o.Shir Samikannu (PW-1)/Step mother of the deceased Murugesan, whose confession statement was recorded u/sec. 164 (5) Cr.P.C. and the Investigating Officers are yet to be examined. (c) Writ Petitioner P.KI.Ilavarasu has no locus standi to prefer this writ petition. (d) The trial of this case is sub-judice before the Court of learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Cuddalore and the learned Judge is the authority competent to decide the matter on merits. (e) In the garb of public interest litigation petition, the writ petitioner has made sweeping allegations against all and sundry and has taken a stand in favour of two accused viz., A-4 Ayyasamy and A-9 Gunasekaran, who belong the same caste as that of the Petitioner, as per his own claim in the Writ Petition. The petitioner has made wild allegations against the Investigating Officers Shri K.Subbian and Shri.V.T.Nandakumar, and also against the Special Public Prosecutor Shri Dominic Vijay, which is not true. As the trial of the case has reached I.O. evidence stage, there seems to be a sinister design to demoralize the IOs and Spl. Public Prosecutor. The tone, tenor and intent of the petitioner appears to be to save his two accused caste men A-4 and A-9 from the possible punishment by resorting to this colourable Public Interest Litigation Petition. (f) the allegations made against the Investigating Officers and also the Special Public Prosecutor of CBI, are baseless and the petitioner has no authority, right to make allegations which are baseless and it is deserved to be dismissed in limine. 6. Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP No.25903 of 2017, would contend that Prosecutor of the choice of the victim alone can be appointed. He would state that when the victims have made an application specifying the Prosecutor, whom the victim wants viz. Mr.A.Rajaganapathy, he should be appointed to conduct the trial. 7. Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP No.25903 of 2017, also would rely on the documents, which reads thus (i) Representation of Samikkannu to the District Magistrate, Cuddalore. “TAMIL” (ii) The order issued by District Collector, Villupuram District under rule 4(5) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 “TAMIL” (iii) Consent letter of Mr.A.Rajaganapathy, Advocate to the District Magistrate, Cuddalore. Magistrate, Cuddlore. “TAMIL” (ii) The order issued by District Collector, Villupuram District under rule 4(5) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 “TAMIL” (iii) Consent letter of Mr.A.Rajaganapathy, Advocate to the District Magistrate, Cuddalore. Magistrate, Cuddlore. To The District Collector Cum District Magistrate, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore. Dear Sir, Sub: Appointment of Special Public Prosecutor in S.C.No.185 of 2010 on the file of Principal Sessions & Special Court for SC/ST cases at Cuddalore. At the request of the victim Mr.Samikannu, PW-1 in the above Sessions case I am inclined to appear on behalf of the prosecution and conduct the case S.C.No.185 of 2010. I enrolled with the Bar Council of Tamilnadu & Puducherry in the year 2002 and I am practicing at Tindivanam with 15 years bar experience both on Criminal & Civl cases. I also appear cases before the Hon'ble High Court. My enrolment number is 309 of 2002. Looking forward. sd/- A.Rajaganapathy (iv) The Proceedings of the District Collector, Cuddalore District appointing Mr. A. Rajaganapathy, Advocate as Public Prosecutor in S.C.No.185 of 2010. “TAMIL” (v) The Proceedings of the District Collector, Cuddalore District cancelling the appointment of Mr.A.Rajaganapathy, Advocate as Public Prosecutor in S.C.No.185 of 2010. “TAMIL” 8. It is contended by Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP No.25903 of 2017 Mr.A.Rajaganapathy, who had been appointed by the District Magistrate on 20.10.2017, in accordance with SC/ST Act, has been wrongly cancelled by District Collector, only on the ground that the matter is pending in this Court. 9. Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that as per sub-Rule 5 of Rule 4 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Rules, 1995 District Magistrate or the Sub Divisional Magistrate is duty bound to appoint/engage an eminent senior advocate of the choice of the victim. 10. Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on a judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Smt.Satki Devi And Anr. Etc. Vs. Tikam Singh and Ors., reported in 2006 Crl.LJ 4721, wherein the Rajasthan High Court, gave its interpretation of sub-Rule 5 of Rule 4 quoted supra, as under. 16. Dwelling upon the scope of Rule 4(5) of the Rules the learned Single Judge held that the rules does not relate to Section 15. Etc. Vs. Tikam Singh and Ors., reported in 2006 Crl.LJ 4721, wherein the Rajasthan High Court, gave its interpretation of sub-Rule 5 of Rule 4 quoted supra, as under. 16. Dwelling upon the scope of Rule 4(5) of the Rules the learned Single Judge held that the rules does not relate to Section 15. It operates to achieve the objectives of various clauses of Section 21(2) of the Act in the matter of effective implementation of the Act. Under Rule 4(5), an eminent senior advocate can be 'engaged' by the District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate, such 'engaged' lawyer can only aid or assist the Special Public Prosecutor "but in any case, he cannot prosecute". If Sub-rule (5) is read as proviso to Section 15 of the Act, it would disturb the structure of the Act. If the rule goes beyond what the Act contemplates, it must yield to the Act. Vires of Sub-rule (5) need not be challenged as it is relatable to Section 21 of the Act. A non-obstante clause can operate only to the extent it is intended to be, and from a bare reference to Sub-rule (5) it is clear that rule intends to facilitate engagement of a counsel if considered necessary by the District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate or desired by the complainant alongside the Special Public Prosecutor. Such engagement is not intended to be (over and above) the power of the State Government to specify or appoint Special Public Prosecutor under Section 15 of the Act. If the non-obstante clause in Sub-rule (5) is read as an independent provision over and above the enactment, the rule to that extent would be invalid and inoperative. The prosecution being essentially by the State and prosecutor being appointed by the State, an Executive Magistrate cannot have an independent power to appoint a prosecutor. Sub-rule (5) does not refer to minimum length of practice as an advocate unlike Section 15 of the Act or Section 24 of the Code for appointment as a Special Public Prosecutor. The omission regarding minimum length of service and the use of the term "engagement" in place of appointment cannot be ignored as insignificant. If the advocate appointed under Sub-rule (5) on the application of the victim is treated as prosecutor, it would lead to an anomalous position as it would permit the victim to become prosecutor. The omission regarding minimum length of service and the use of the term "engagement" in place of appointment cannot be ignored as insignificant. If the advocate appointed under Sub-rule (5) on the application of the victim is treated as prosecutor, it would lead to an anomalous position as it would permit the victim to become prosecutor. Advocate so appointed can conduct the case "to the extent his engagement would permit; but he cannot prosecute". 18. We are afraid, the learned single Judge overlooked the fact that the Act is a special statute enacted among other things to provide for Special Courts for trial of offences of atrocities against members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is true that in terms of Section 4(2) of the Code, all offences under any law other than the Indian Penal Code including special law are to be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions i.e. provisions contained in the Code, but that is subject to any special enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner of investigation, enquiry or trial. The provisions regarding appointment of Public Prosecutor are contained in Section 24 of the Code and those relating to trial by Public prosecutor in a Court of Session are contained in Sections 225 and 301 of the Code. The provisions relating to appointment of Special Public Prosecutor under Section 15 or engagement of an 'eminent senior advocate' under Rule 4(5) are to be read as supplemental to the provisions of the Code. It is pertinent to mention here that appointment of Public Prosecutor or Special Public Prosecutor - whether under Section 24 of the Code or Section 15 of the Act - is for "conducting" cases in the Court of Session or Special Court, as the case may be. Likewise, the engagement of eminent senior advocate under Rule 4(5) of the Rules is also for "conducting" cases in the Special Court. We find no justification for taking the view that an advocate engaged under Rule 4(5) can only aid or assist Special Public Prosecutor and submit written arguments at the end of trial with permission of the Court, but he cannot prosecute." 11. We find no justification for taking the view that an advocate engaged under Rule 4(5) can only aid or assist Special Public Prosecutor and submit written arguments at the end of trial with permission of the Court, but he cannot prosecute." 11. Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the said judgment would contend that though under sub Rule (1) of Rule 4, the State Government on the recommendation of the District Magistrate, shall prepare for each District a panel of such number of eminent senior advocates who have been in practice for not less than seven years, for conducting the cases relating to atrocities on SC/ST punishable under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with the provisions of IPC, Sub rule 5 of Rule 4, which begins with the notwithstanding clause, would have to be given a meaning that if the victim desires to have a particular advocate to conduct the case, then the victim's choice has to be accepted. 12. He would therefore contend that in the present case when the victims are desirous of appointing Mr.A.Rajaganapathy, as the Public Prosecutor, then the District Collector is obliged to accept the desire of the victims and ought not have cancelled the appointment of Mr.A.Rajaganapathy, only on the ground that a case is pending before this Court. The argument is that Sub rule 5 of Rule 4 will override Sub rule (1) of Rule 4 in all circumstances and it is the duty of the Magistrate to appoint an advocate of the choice of the victim whenever the victim desires. 13. Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner would also place reliance on a judgment of this Court in K.Muruganandam Vs. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Namakkal Dist & another, reported in 2011 (3) MWN (Cr.) 146 wherein this Court observed as under "9. 13. Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner would also place reliance on a judgment of this Court in K.Muruganandam Vs. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Namakkal Dist & another, reported in 2011 (3) MWN (Cr.) 146 wherein this Court observed as under "9. Under Para-5 of the order passed in Crl.O.P.No.22387 of 2011, this Court cited the Rule 4(5) of SC/ST (P&A) Rules, 1995, which is extracted hereunder: "4(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate may, if deem necessary or if so desired by the victim of atrocity engage an eminent Senior Advocate for conducting cases in the Special Courts on such payment of fees as he may consider appropriate." The statutory Rules give right to the victim of atrocities for choosing a Public Prosecutor of their own choice." 14. Reliance has also been made on a judgment of this Court in Somaliappan Vs. Palaniswamy, reported in 2013 (4) MLJ (Crl) 237, wherein this Court has observed as hereunder. 18. As already stated SC/ST(PA) Act is a Special Act enacted to view seriously the atrocities committed on the members of these down trodden communities. The objective of the Act was demonstrated by including Sections 20 and 21 in the Act. They run as under:- “20. Act to override other laws:- Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any custom or usage or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law. 21. Duty of Government to ensure effective implementation of the Act:- (1) Subject to such rules as the Central Government may make in this behalf, the State Government shall take such measures as may be necessary for the effective implementation of this Act.” 5. In the above judgment, the learned Judge relying on the judgment of Rajasthan High Court stated supra, has come to the conclusion as under. "25. The language employed in Rule 4(5) is plain, simple and admit of any difficulty or ambiguity in understanding it. Unlike the General Penal Law of India or any other enactment providing prosecution, the SC/ST (PA) Act is a special Act intended to put an end to untouchability, degradation of human being merely on account of their birth. "25. The language employed in Rule 4(5) is plain, simple and admit of any difficulty or ambiguity in understanding it. Unlike the General Penal Law of India or any other enactment providing prosecution, the SC/ST (PA) Act is a special Act intended to put an end to untouchability, degradation of human being merely on account of their birth. That is how, as per Section 18 of the Act, even grant of pre-arrest bail has been ruled out for those who commits the offences prescribed under the Act. Added to that Section 20 introduced a non-obstante clause and Section 21 imposed a duty on the Central Government to frame rules for effective implementation of the Act." 16. Mr.K.Srinivasan, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI would contend that Mr.T.Dominic Vijay is an experienced person and he would also contend that trial has almost come to a conclusion and that therefore, there is no need to change the Prosecutor. He reiterates the averments made in the counter affidavit. 17. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 18. At the outset, it is a fairly well established legal preposition that a third party/stranger does not have any right to participate in a criminal prosecution. 19. A criminal litigation is exclusively between the accused and the State. However, the interest of the victims are now being recognised and the victims are also now being permitted to participate in the criminal proceedings, after the amendments in the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the say of the victim, is not dominant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Janata Dal Vs. H.S.Choudhary, reported in 1992(4) SCC 305 , has held that in a criminal case, a person who has no interest at all should not be permitted to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court in the proceedings. 20. It is well settled that a person acting bonafide having sufficient interest in the proceedings does have a locus standi, to file a public interest litigation, even in criminal matters. Reference can be made to Janata Dal Vs. H.S.Choudhary, reported in 1991(3) SCC 756 and Subramanian Swamy Vs. Raju, reported in 2013(10) SCC 465 . 21. 20. It is well settled that a person acting bonafide having sufficient interest in the proceedings does have a locus standi, to file a public interest litigation, even in criminal matters. Reference can be made to Janata Dal Vs. H.S.Choudhary, reported in 1991(3) SCC 756 and Subramanian Swamy Vs. Raju, reported in 2013(10) SCC 465 . 21. As stated earlier, third parties cannot be permitted to maintain a petition, on behalf of the victim, much less in public interest litigation, but in special circumstances, where the victims are unable to approach the Court to vindicate their grievances, public interest litigation can be entertained on their behalf. 22. However, in the present case, the victims are members of a vulnerable section of society viz., Scheduled castes/scheduled tribes, who do not have sufficient means to approach the Court. Their rights are now sought to be espoused. The rule of locus standi therefore, in such circumstances should be relaxed. 23. It is also to be seen as to whether and to what extent can third parties interfere in a criminal proceedings. 24. The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was enacted to check and deter crimes against the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It was felt that, despite various measures, which have been undertaken to improve the conditions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, they have been prone and vulnerable to atrocities and attacks from other communities. It was seen that they have been subjected to various offences, indignities, humiliations and harassment, etc., and that they are not permitted to assert/exercise their rights. It was also found that as and when an attempt was made, to raise their voice, to exercise their rights, they were always cowed down and terrorised. It was for this purpose, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was brought into force. The statement of objects and reasons for the Act, is a strong point, as to the reason of bringing the Act and the object, it seeks to achieve. "Despite various measures to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, they remain vulnerable. They are denied number of civil rights. They are subjected to various offences, indignities, humiliations and harassment. They have, in several brutal incidents, been deprived of their life and property. "Despite various measures to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, they remain vulnerable. They are denied number of civil rights. They are subjected to various offences, indignities, humiliations and harassment. They have, in several brutal incidents, been deprived of their life and property. Serious crimes are committed against them for various historical, social and economic reasons. 2. Because of the awareness created amongst the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes through spread of education, etc., they are trying to assert their rights and this is not being taken very kindly by the others. When they assert their rights and resist practices of untouchability against them or demand statutory minimum wages or refuse to do any bonded and forced labour, the vested interests try to cow them down and terrorise them. When the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes try to preserve their self-respect or honour of their women, they become irritants for the dominant and the mighty. Occupation and cultivation of even the Government allotted land by the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes is resented and more often these people become victims of attacks by the vested interests. Of late, there has been an increase in the disturbing trend of commission of certain atrocities like making the Scheduled Caste persons eat inedible substances like human excreta and attacks on and mass killings of helpless Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and rape of women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Under the circumstances, the existing laws like the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the normal provisions of the Indian Penal Code have been found to be inadequate to check these crimes. A special Legislation to check and deter crimes against them committed by non-Scheduled Castes and non-Scheduled Tribes has, therefore, become necessary. 3. The term 'atrocity' has not been defined so far. It is considered necessary that not only the term 'atrocity' should be defined but stringent measures should be introduced to provide for higher punishments for committing such atrocities. It is also proposed to enjoining on the States and the Union Territories to take specific preventive and punitive measures to protect the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes from being victimised and where atrocities are committed, to provide adequate relief and assistance to rehabilitate them. 1. 4. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects. 25. It is also proposed to enjoining on the States and the Union Territories to take specific preventive and punitive measures to protect the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes from being victimised and where atrocities are committed, to provide adequate relief and assistance to rehabilitate them. 1. 4. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects. 25. Section 2 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is the definition clause. Sections 2 (a), (b), (bd), (c), (d), (e), (ec) and (ed), which are relevant for this case are extracted. (a) “atrocity” means an offence punishable under section 3; (b) “Code” means the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974); (bd) "Exclusive Special Court" means the Exclusive Special Court established under sub-Section (1) of section 14 exclusively to try the offences under this Act (c) “Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes” shall have the meanings assigned to them respectively under clause (24) and clause (25) of article 366 of the Constitution: (d) “Special Court” means a Court of Session specified as a Special Court in section 14; (e) “Special Public Prosecutor” means a Public Prosecutor specified as a Special Public Prosecutor or an advocate referred to in section 15; (ec) "Victim" means any individual who falls within the definition of the "Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes" under clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of section 2 and who has suffered or experienced physical, mental, psychological, emotional or monetary harm or harm to his property as a result of the commission of any offence under this Act and includes his relatives, legal guardian and legal heirs. (ed) "witness" means any person who is acquainted with the facts and circumstances, or is in possession of any information of has knowledge necessary for the purpose of investigation, inquiry or trial of any crime involving an offence under this Act, and who is or may be required to give information or make a statement or produce any document during investigation, inquiry or trial of such case and includes a victim of such officer. 26. Section 3 provides for punishment, for the offences of atrocities. 27. Section 7, deals with forfeiture of property of certain persons, who have been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 3 of the Act and the same is as under 7. 26. Section 3 provides for punishment, for the offences of atrocities. 27. Section 7, deals with forfeiture of property of certain persons, who have been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 3 of the Act and the same is as under 7. (1) Where a person has been convicted of any offence punishable under this Chapter, the Special Court may, in addition to awarding any punishment, by order in writing, declare that any property, movable or immovable or both, belonging to the person, which has been used for the commission of that offence, shall stand forfeited to Government. (2) Where any person is accused of any offence under this Chapter, it shall be open to the Special Court trying him to pass an order that all or any of the properties, movable or immovable or both, belonging to him, shall, during the period of such trial, be attached, and where such trial ends in conviction, the property so attached shall be liable to forfeiture to the extent it is required for the purpose of realisation of any fine imposed under this Chapter." 28. Section 14 deals with constitution of Special and exclusive special courts for the purpose of hearing and trying the cases arising out of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which is a Court of Session and the same is as under 14. Special Court and Exclusive Special Court. — (1) For the purpose of providing for speedy trial, the State Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification in the Official Gazette, establish an Exclusive Special Court for one or more Districts: Provided that in Districts where less number of cases under this Act is recorded, the State Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify for such Districts, the Court of Session to be a Special Court to try the offences under this Act: Provided further that the Courts so established or specified shall have power to directly take cognizance of offences under this Act. (2) It shall be the duty of the State Government to establish adequate number of Courts to ensure that cases under this Act are disposed of within a period of two months, as far as possible. (2) It shall be the duty of the State Government to establish adequate number of Courts to ensure that cases under this Act are disposed of within a period of two months, as far as possible. (3) In every trial in the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court, the proceedings shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that when the trial relates to an offence under this Act, the trial shall, as far as possible, be completed within a period of two months from the date of filing of the charge sheet. 29. Section 14A provides for appellate remedy and provides that an appeal lies only to the High Court and the same is as under 14A. Appeals.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and on law. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie to the High Court against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court granting or refusing bail. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of the judgment, sentence or order appealed from: Provided that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of ninety days: Provided further that no appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of the period of one hundred and eighty days. (4) Every appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of admission of the appeal. 30. Section 15 deals with appointment of Special Public Prosecutor and Exclusive Public Prosecutor and the same is as under 15. (4) Every appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of admission of the appeal. 30. Section 15 deals with appointment of Special Public Prosecutor and Exclusive Public Prosecutor and the same is as under 15. Special Public Prosecutor and Exclusive Public Prosecutor.—(1) For every Special Court, the State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify a Public Prosecutor or appoint an advocate who has been in practice as an advocate for not less than seven years, as a Special Public Prosecutor for the purpose of conducting cases in that Court. (2) For every Exclusive Special Court, the State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify an Exclusive Special Public Prosecutor or appoint an advocate who has been in practice as an advocate for not less than seven years, as an Exclusive Special Public Prosecutor for the purpose of conducting cases in that Court. 31. Section 15A defines the rights of victims and witnesses, which is extracted as under 15A. Rights of victims and witnesses.—(1) It shall be the duty and responsibility of the State to make arrangements for the protection of victims, their dependents, and witnesses against any kind of intimidation or coercion or inducement or violence or threats of violence. (2) A victim shall be treated with fairness, respect and dignity and with due regard to any special need that arises because of the victim‘s age or gender or educational disadvantage or poverty. (3) A victim or his dependent shall have the right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any Court proceeding including any bail proceeding and the Special Public Prosecutor or the State Government shall inform the victim about any proceedings under this Act. (4) A victim or his dependent shall have the right to apply to the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court, as the case may be, to summon parties for production of any documents or material, witnesses or examine the persons present. (5) A victim or his dependent shall be entitled to be heard at any proceeding under this Act in respect of bail, discharge, release, parole, conviction or sentence of an accused or any connected proceedings or arguments and file written submission on conviction, acquittal or sentencing. (5) A victim or his dependent shall be entitled to be heard at any proceeding under this Act in respect of bail, discharge, release, parole, conviction or sentence of an accused or any connected proceedings or arguments and file written submission on conviction, acquittal or sentencing. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court trying a case under this Act shall provide to a victim, his dependent, informant or witnesses–– (a) the complete protection to secure the ends of justice; (b) the travelling and maintenance expenses during investigation, inquiry and trial; (c) the social-economic rehabilitation during investigation, inquiry and trial; and (d) relocation. (7) The State shall inform the concerned Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court about the protection provided to any victim or his dependent, informant or witnesses and such Court shall periodically review the protection being offered and pass appropriate orders. (8) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (6), the concerned Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court may, on an application made by a victim or his dependent, informant or witness in any proceedings before it or by the Special Public Prosecutor in relation to such victim, informant or witness or on its own motion, take such measures including–– (a) concealing the names and addresses of the witnesses in its orders or judgments or in any records of the case accessible to the public; (b) issuing directions for non-disclosure of the identity and addresses of the witnesses; (c) take immediate action in respect of any complaint relating to harassment of a victim, informant or witness and on the same day, if necessary, pass appropriate orders for protection: Provided that inquiry or investigation into the complaint received under clause (c) shall be tried separately from the main case by such Court and concluded within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the complaint: Provided further that where the complaint under clause (c) is against any public servant, the Court shall restrain such public servant from interfering with the victim, informant or witness, as the case may be, in any matter related or unrelated to the pending case, except with the permission of the Court. (9) It shall be the duty of the Investigating Officer and the Station House Officer to record the complaint of victim, informant or witnesses against any kind of intimidation, coercion or inducement or violence or threats of violence, whether given orally or in writing, and a photocopy of the First Information Report shall be immediately given to them at free of cost. (10) All proceedings relating to offences under this Act shall be video recorded. (10) All proceedings relating to offences under this Act shall be video recorded. (11) It shall be the duty of the concerned State to specify an appropriate scheme to ensure implementation of the following rights and entitlements of victims and witnesses in accessing justice so as –– (a) to provide a copy of the recorded First Information Report at free of cost; (b) to provide immediate relief in cash or in kind to atrocity victims or their dependents; (c) to provide necessary protection to the atrocity victims or their dependents, and witnesses; (d) to provide relief in respect of death or injury or damage to property; (e) to arrange food or water or clothing or shelter or medical aid or transport facilities or daily allowances to victims; (f) to provide the maintenance expenses to the atrocity victims and their dependents; (g) to provide the information about the rights of atrocity victims at the time of making complaints and registering the First Information Report; (h) to provide the protection to atrocity victims or their dependents and witnesses from intimidation and harassment; (i) to provide the information to atrocity victims or their dependents or associated organisations or individuals, on the status of investigation and charge sheet and to provide copy of the charge sheet at free of cost; (j) to take necessary precautions at the time of medical examination; (k) to provide information to atrocity victims or their dependents or associated organisations or individuals, regarding the relief amount; (l) to provide information to atrocity victims or their dependents or associated organisations or individuals, in advance about the dates and place of investigation and trial ; (m) to give adequate briefing on the case and preparation for trial to atrocity victims or their dependents or associated organisations or individuals and to provide the legal aid for the said purpose; (n) to execute the rights of atrocity victims or their dependents or associated organisations or individuals at every stage of the proceedings under this Act and to provide the necessary assistance for the execution of the rights. (12) It shall be the right of the atrocity victims or their dependents, to take assistance from the Non-Government Organisations, social workers or advocates. 32. (12) It shall be the right of the atrocity victims or their dependents, to take assistance from the Non-Government Organisations, social workers or advocates. 32. The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Rules, 1995 have been framed in exercise of powers under sub section (1) of Section 23 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 33. Rule 4 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Rules, 1995 which deals with appointment of Prosecutors, reads as under. 4. Supervision of Prosecution and Submission of Report.—(l) The State Government, on the recommendation of the District Magistrate, shall prepare for each District a panel of such number of eminent senior advocates who have been in practice for not less than seven years, as it may deem necessary for conducting cases in the Special Courts and Exclusive Special Courts. (1A) The State Government in consultation with the Director Prosecution or in charge of the prosecution, shall also specify a panel of such number of Public Prosecutors and Exclusive Special Public Prosecutors, as it may deem necessary for conducting cases in the Special Courts and Exclusive Special Courts, as the case may be. (1B) Both the panels referred to in sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (1A) shall be notified in the Official Gazette of the State and shall remain in force for a period of three years.] (2) The District Magistrate and the Director of Prosecution/in-charge of the prosecution shall review at least twice in a calendar year, in the months of January and July, the performance of Special Public Prosecutors and Exclusive Special Public Prosecutors] so specified or appointed and submit a report to the State Government. (3) If the State Government is satisfied or has reason to believe that *[a Special Public Prosecutor or an Exclusive Special Public Prosecutor] so appointed or specified has not conducted the case to the best of his ability and with due care and caution, his name may be, for reasons to be recorded in writing, denotified. (3) If the State Government is satisfied or has reason to believe that *[a Special Public Prosecutor or an Exclusive Special Public Prosecutor] so appointed or specified has not conducted the case to the best of his ability and with due care and caution, his name may be, for reasons to be recorded in writing, denotified. (4) The District Magistrate and the officer-in-charge of the prosecution at the District level, shall review,— (a) the position of cases registered under the Act; (b) the implementation of the rights of victims and witnesses, specified under the provisions of Chapter IVA of the Act, and submit a monthly report on or before 20th day of each subsequent month to the Director of Prosecution and the State Government, which shall specify the actions taken or proposed to be taken in respect investigation and prosecution of each case. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate may, if deem necessary, or if so desired by the victims of atrocity engage an eminent Senior Advocate for conducting cases in the Special Courts or Exclusive Special Courts on such payment of fee as he may consider appropriate. (6) Payment of fee to the Special Public Prosecutor and Exclusive Special Public Prosecutor shall be fixed by the State Government on a scale higher than the other panel advocates in the State. 34. Arguments have been principally advanced only on two aspects viz., (1) as to whether Mr.A.Rajaganapathy, who is now the choice of the victim, should be appointed in the place of Mr.T.Dominic Vijay, under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. (2) Whether Mrs.Chinnapillai (PW49) should be recalled for fresh examination or not. It is specifically alleged that she was forced to give the evidence, which is not of her free will. We are afraid that this prayer can be accepted, at this juncture. It is for the trial Court to decide on the application as to whether Mrs.Chinnapillai (PW49) has to be recalled or not. Evidence once given cannot be eschewed. It is specifically alleged that she was forced to give the evidence, which is not of her free will. We are afraid that this prayer can be accepted, at this juncture. It is for the trial Court to decide on the application as to whether Mrs.Chinnapillai (PW49) has to be recalled or not. Evidence once given cannot be eschewed. The High Courts should not interfere in the trial and proceedings should be left to the discretion of the learned Sessions Judge conducting the trial, who had the opportunity of looking into the demeanour of the witnesses and the learned Sessions Judge has to decide as to whether Mrs.Chinnapillai (PW49) should be recalled or not. Such an issue cannot be dealt with, in a public interest litigation. 35. The second issue is whether sub Rule 5 of Rule 4 of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Rules, 1995 mandates the District Magistrate or the Sub Divisional Magistrate to engage an eminent senior Advocate of the victim's choice in any case, regardless of the circumstances. 36. Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the word 'may' in Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Rules, 1995 should be read as 'shall' and if the victim desires to have his own Prosecutor, then the Magistrate is duty bound to appoint that lawyer. We are afraid that we can accept the submission of Mr.V.Lakshminarayanann, learned counsel for the petitioner. 37. Reading of the object of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 shows that the Act is meant to protect the interest of the SC/ST who are vulnerable section of the Society. The Magistrate on the mere asking cannot appoint the Prosecutor of the choice of the victim. It is possible that a victim could be pressurised by the tormentors to ask for a Prosecutor to the advantage of the tormentors themselves. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the District Magistrate is powerless to accept the choice of the victim. The word 'may' cannot be interpreted as 'shall'. It is possible that a victim could be pressurised by the tormentors to ask for a Prosecutor to the advantage of the tormentors themselves. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the District Magistrate is powerless to accept the choice of the victim. The word 'may' cannot be interpreted as 'shall'. In any event it is a well settled principle of interpretation that the plain meaning of the word occurring in the section must be given by the Court and the Court would substitute the meaning or change the word, only in such cases, where the ordinary meaning, if given would result in absurd consequences. 38. The inference as to how the words 'may' and 'shall' has to be interpreted depends upon the object, design, purpose and scope of the legislation. It has to be done case to case. It is not a invariable rule that though the word used in the legislation is 'may', it is directory, it should be termed as 'shall' which is ordinarily mandatory. Where the consequence of failure to comply with any requirement of a provision is provided in the statute itself, the consequences has to be determined with the nature of the provision, the purpose of enactment and the effect of non compliance thereof. In the absence of any provision, the consequences have to be determined with reference to the effect of non compliance of the Act. 39. It cannot be held that in every case, when an application for change of the Prosecutor is made by the victim, the Magistrate is duty bound to accept. It is for the Magistrate to ascertain as to whether the request for appointment of the Prosecutor by the victim is genuine. Whether the Prosecutor who is already conducting the case, is not conducting the case properly and only then, come to a conclusion of his own that whether such a request of the victim should be accepted or not, keeping in mind the object of the legislation. 40. Reading of the two public interest litigations would show that it is primarily intended to save the two accused, who belong to scheduled case community. The reading of the pleading also shows that people are trying to interfere with the trial. As stated earlier, a criminal trial is always between the State and the accused and the interference from a third party should be absent. The reading of the pleading also shows that people are trying to interfere with the trial. As stated earlier, a criminal trial is always between the State and the accused and the interference from a third party should be absent. The pleadings are full of instances which demonstrates interference in the process of trial. Just because some persons interfere with the proceedings and wish the trial to proceed in the way, they want it to be, the Court must not be parties to such attempt. It is for the trial Court to conduct the case properly. The High Court cannot interfere and orient the nature of the trial, unless there are materials to show that there is gross abuse of law. Reading of the pleadings does not satisfy the judicial aspect that there is gross abuse of law. 41. In the present case, the Prosecutor has been appointed by the CBI under Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is also an admitted position that the trial is in an advanced stage. Though the entire Act has been enacted to save, protect the Scheduled castes/scheduled tribes, vulnerable section in the society and no doubt the choice of the victim is of great significance/importance, it cannot be said that whatever the victim asks in the conduct of trial, must be acceded to. The investigating agency was transferred only to ensure free and fair investigation. The independent agency has appointed its Prosecutor. Prosecutor appointed by the Investigating Agency is the Prosecutor, appointed on the directions of this Court, transferring the case to CBI. In any event, there is no material before us, to come to a conclusion that the Prosecutor, is not conducting the case diligently. This Court is therefore, of the opinion that change of Prosecutor, midstream, would only be detrimental to the case. 42. Prayer No.4 in WP No.25903 of 2017 i.e. Public Interest Litigation to replace the Special Public Prosecutor Mr.T.Dominic Vijay, who is representing CBI in S.C.No.185 of 2010 before the Special Court (The Principal District and Sessions Court), Cuddalore, by appointing an eminent senior Advocate to represent the CBI in the pending trial in S.C.No.185 of 2010 before the Special Court (The Principal District and Sessions Court), Cuddalore in the light of Rule IV(5) of the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, is rejected. 43. 43. Victims are at liberty to approach the trial Court and learned Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore is directed to hear the petitions in M.P.Nos.3851 and 4098 of 2017 filed by Mrs.M.Tamilarasi, Mr.Mayavel and Mr.T.Pattusamy respectively for cancellation of bail of the four accused, namely, M/s Maruthapandian, Kandavel, Jothi and Ramadoss along with the petition in M.P.No.4111 of 2017 filed by Mr.C.Samikannu under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., for summoning his wife Chinnapillai as a Court Witness, on a day-to-day basis and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, so that finality is attained in these petitions. 44. Arguments have also been advanced regarding evolution of appropriate schemes to protect the victims, their dependants and the witnesses in the criminal cases with regard to the offences committed against the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as found in the Special Enactment and under Section 15A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, read with Rules 8, 11 to 18 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, which reads as under. 8. Setting up of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Protection Cell.—(1) The State Government shall set up a Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Protection Cell at the State headquarter under the charge of Director General of Police/Inspector General of Police. 8. Setting up of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Protection Cell.—(1) The State Government shall set up a Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Protection Cell at the State headquarter under the charge of Director General of Police/Inspector General of Police. This Cell shall be responsible for— (i) conducting survey of the identified area; (ii) maintaining public order and tranquility in the identified area; (iii) recommending to the State Government for deployment of special police force or establishment of special police post in the identified area; (iv) making investigations about the probable causes leading to an offence under the Act; (v) restoring the feeling of security amongst the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes; (vi) informing the nodal officer and special officer about the law and order situation in the identified area; (via) informing the nodal officer and the concerned District Magistrates about implementation of the rights of victims and witnesses specified under the provisions of Chapter IVA of the Act; (vii) making enquiries about the investigation and spot inspections conducted by various officers; (viii) making enquiries about the action taken by the Superintendent of Police in the cases where an officer in-charge of the police station has refused to enter an information in a book to be maintained by that police station under sub-rule (3) of rule 5; (ix) making enquiries about the wilful negligence by a public servant; reviewing the position of cases registered under the Act; and submitting a monthly report on or before 20th day of each subsequent month to the State Government/nodal officer about the action taken/proposed to be taken in respect of the above. 11. Travelling allowance, daily allowance, maintenance expenses and transport facilities to the victim of atrocity, his or her dependent and witnesses.—(1) Every victim of atrocity or his/her dependent and witnesses shall be paid to and fro rail fare by second class in express/mail/passenger train or actual bus or taxi fare from his/her place of residence or place of stay to the place of investigation or hearing of trial of an offence under the Act. (2) The District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate shall make necessary arrangements for providing transport facilities or reimbursement of full payment thereof to the victims of atrocity and witnesses for visiting the investigating officer, Superintendent of Police/Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate. (3) Every woman witness, the victim of atrocity or her dependent being a woman or a minor, a person more than sixty years of age and a person having 40 per cent or more disability shall be entitled to be accompanied by an attendant of her/his choice. The attendant shall also be paid travelling and maintenance expenses as applicable to the witness or the victim of atrocity when called upon during hearing, investigation and trial of an offence under the Act. (4) The witness, the victim of atrocity or his/her dependent and the attendant shall be paid daily maintenance expenses, for the days he/she is away from the place of his/her residence or stay during investigation, hearing and trial of an offence, at such rates but not less than the minimum wages, as may be fixed by the State Government for the agricultural labourers. (5) In addition to daily maintenance expenses the witness, the victim of atrocity (or his/her dependant) and the attendant shall also be paid diet expenses at such rates as may be fixed by the State Government from time to time. (6) The payment of travelling allowance, daily allowance, maintenance expenses and reimbursement of transport facilities shall be made immediately or not later than three days by the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate to the victims, their dependants/attendants and witnesses for the days they visit the investigating officer or incharge of police station or hospital authorities or Superintendent of Police/Deputy Superintendent of Police or District Magistrate or any other officer concerned or the special court. (7) When an offence has been committed under section 3 of the Act, the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate shall reimburse the payment of medicines, special medical consultation, blood transfusion, replacement of essential clothing, meals and fruits provided to the victims of atrocity. 12. (7) When an offence has been committed under section 3 of the Act, the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate shall reimburse the payment of medicines, special medical consultation, blood transfusion, replacement of essential clothing, meals and fruits provided to the victims of atrocity. 12. Measures to be taken by the District Administration.—(1) The District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police shall visit the place or area where the atrocity has been committed to assess the loss of life and damage to the property and draw a list of victims, their family members and dependents entitled for relief. (2) Superintendent of Police shall ensure that the First Information Report is registered in the book of the concerned police station and effective measure for apprehending the accused are taken. (3) The Superintendent of Police, after spot inspection, shall immediately appoint an investigating officer and deploy such police force in the area and take such other preventive measures as he may deem proper and necessary. (4) The District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate shall make necessary administrative and other arrangements and provide relief in cash or in kind or both within seven days to the victims of atrocity, their family members and dependents according to the scale as provided in Annexure-I read with Annexure-II of the Schedule annexed to these rules and such immediate relief shall also include food, water, clothing, shelter, medical aid, transport facilities and other essential items. (4A) For immediate withdrawal of money from the treasury so as to timely provide the relief amount as specified in sub-rule (4), the concerned State Government or Union territory Administration may provide necessary authorisation and powers to the District Magistrate. (4B) The Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court may also order socioeconomic rehabilitation during investigation, inquiry and trial, as provided in clause (c) of sub-section 6 of section 15A of the Act. (5) The relief provided to the victim of the atrocity or his/her dependent under sub-rule (4) in respect of death, or injury to, or damage to property shall be in addition to any other right to claim compensation in respect there of under any other law for the time being in force. (5) The relief provided to the victim of the atrocity or his/her dependent under sub-rule (4) in respect of death, or injury to, or damage to property shall be in addition to any other right to claim compensation in respect there of under any other law for the time being in force. (6) The relief and rehabilitation facilities mentioned in sub-rule (4) above shall be provided by the District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate in accordance with the scales provided in the Schedule annexed to these rules. (7) A report of the relief and rehabilitation facilities provided to the victims shall also be forwarded to the '[Special Court or Exclusive Special Court] by the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or the Executive Magistrate, of Superintendent of Police. In case the '[Special Court or Exclusive Special Court] is satisfied that the payment of relief was not made to the victim or his/her dependent in time or the amount of relief or compensation was not sufficient or only a part of payment of relief or compensation was made it may order for making in full or part the payment of relief or any other kind of assistance. 13. Selection of officers and other staff members for completing the work relating to atrocity.— (1) The State Government shall ensure that the administrative officers and other staff members to be appointed in an area prone to atrocity shall have the right aptitude and understanding of the problems of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. (2) It shall also be ensured by the State Government that person from the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes are adequately represented in the administration and in the police force at all levels, particularly at the level of police posts and police station. 14. Specific Responsibility of State Government.— (1) The State Government shall make necessary provisions in its annual budget for providing relief and rehabilitation facilities to the victims of atrocity, as well as for implementing an appropriate scheme for the rights and entitlements of victims and witnesses in accessing justice as specified in sub-section (11) of section 15A of Chapter IV A of the Act. (2) The State Government shall review at least twice in a calendar year, in the month of January and July the performance of the Special Public Prosecutor and Exclusive Special Public Prosecutor specified or appointed under section 15 of the Act, various reports received, investigation made and preventive steps taken by the District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, relief and rehabilitation facilities provided to the victims and the reports in respect of lapses on behalf of the concerned officers. 15. Contingency plan by the State Government.— (1) The State Government 1 [shall frame and implement a plan to effectively implement] the provisions of the Act and notify the same in the Official Gazette of the State Government. It should specify the role and responsibility of various departments and their officers at different levels, the role and responsibility of Rural/Urban Local Bodies and Non-Government Organisations. Inter alia this plan shall contain a package of relief measures including the following:— (a) scheme to provide immediate relief in cash or in kind or both; (aa) an appropriate scheme for the rights and entitlements of victims and witnesses in accessing justice, as specified in sub-section (11) of section 15A of Chapter IVA of the Act; (b) allotment of agricultural land and house sites; (c) the rehabilitation packages; (d) scheme for employment in Government or Government undertaking to the dependant or one of the family members of the victim; (e) pension scheme for widows, dependant children of the deceased, handicapped or old age victims of atrocity; (f) mandatory compensation for the victims; (g) scheme for strengthening the socio-economic condition of the victim; (h) provisions for providing brick/stone masonary house to the victims; (i) such other elements as health care, supply of essential commodities, electrification, adequate drinking water facility, burial/cremation ground and link road to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes habitats. (2) The State Government shall forward a copy of the contingency plan or a summary thereof and a copy of the scheme, as soon as may be, 3[to the Central Government in the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment] and to all the District Magistrates, Sub- Divisional Magistrates, Inspectors General of Police and Superintendents of Police. 16. 16. Constitution of State-Level Vigilance and Monitoring Committee.— (1) The State Government shall constitute high power vigilance and monitoring committee of not more than twenty-five members consisting of the following, namely:— (i) Chief Minister or Administrator - Chairman (in case of a State under President's Rule, the Governor shall be the Chairman); (ii) Home Minister, Finance Minister and Ministers in-charge of welfare and development of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes - Members (in case of a State under the President's Rule, the Advisors shall be Members); (iii) all elected Members of Parliament and State Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council from the State belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall be Members; (iv) Chief Secretary, the Home Secretary, the Director-General of Police, Director/Deputy Director, the National Commission for the Scheduled Castes and the National Commission for the Scheduled Tribes shall be Members; (v) The Secretary in-charge to the welfare and development of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall be Convener. (2) The high power vigilance and monitoring committee shall meet at least twice in a calendar year, in the month of January and July to review the implementation of the provisions of the Act, scheme for the rights and entitlements of victims and witnesses in accessing justice, as specified in subsection (11) of section 15A of Chapter IVA of the Act, relief and rehabilitation facilities provided to the victims and other matters connected therewith, prosecution of cases under the Act, role of different officers or agencies responsible for implementing the provisions of the Act and review of various reports received by the State Government including that of the nodal officer and special officer. 17. Constitution of District-level vigilance and monitoring committee.—(1) In each district within the State, the District Magistrate shall set up a vigilance and monitoring committee in his district to review the implementation of the provisions of the Act, scheme for the rights and entitlements of victims and witnesses in accessing justice, as specified in sub-section (11) of section 15A of Chapter IVA of the Act,] relief and rehabilitation facilities provided to the victims and other matters connected therewith, prosecution of cases under the Act, role of different officers/agencies responsible for implementing the provisions of the Act and various reports received by the District Administration. (2) The district-level vigilance and monitoring committee shall consist of the elected Members of the Parliament and State Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council, Superintendent of Police, three group 'A' officers/Gazetted officers of the State Government belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, not more than 5 non-official members belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and not more than 3 members from the categories other than the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes having association with Non-Government Organizations. The District Magistrate and District Social Welfare Officer shall be Chairman and Member-Secretary respectively. (3) The district-level committee shall meet at least once in three months. 17A. Constitution of Sub-Division level vigilance and monitoring committee.— (1) In each Sub-Division within the State, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate shall set up a vigilance and monitoring committee in his Sub-Division to review the implementation of the provisions of the Act, scheme for the rights and entitlements of victims and witnesses in accessing justice, as specified in subsection (11) of section 15A of Chapter IVA of the Act,] relief and rehabilitation facilities provided to the victims and other matters connected therewith, prosecution of cases under the Act, role of different officers/agencies responsible for implementing the provisions of the Act and various reports received by the Sub-Division Administration. (2) The sub-division level vigilance and monitoring committee shall consist of members of State Legislative Assembly and State Legislative Council from the sub-division, elected members of Panchayati Raj Institutions belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, Deputy Superintendent of Police Tehsildar, Block Development Officer, not more than two non-official members belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and not more than two members from the categories other than the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes having association with non-Government organisations. (3) The Sub-divisional Magistrate shall be the Chairperson and the Block Development Officer, the member Secretary, respectively of the sub-division level vigilance and monitoring committee. (4) The sub-division level vigilance and monitoring committee shall meet at least once in three months. 18. Material for annual report.—The State Government shall every year before the 1st July, forward the report to the Central Government about the measures taken for implementing provisions of the Act and various schemes/plans framed by it during the previous calendar year. 45. (4) The sub-division level vigilance and monitoring committee shall meet at least once in three months. 18. Material for annual report.—The State Government shall every year before the 1st July, forward the report to the Central Government about the measures taken for implementing provisions of the Act and various schemes/plans framed by it during the previous calendar year. 45. The State Government is directed to frame such schemes and file before this Court within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, for compliance. The application for impleadment is dismissed and other miscellaneous petitions are closed. 46. Post on 05.09.2019, 'for reporting complice'.