- (1.) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners Bhramdutt and Sembar have challenged the order dated 22-5-2014 passed by the respondent No. 1, Principal Secretary, Law and Legislative Department, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal whereby the respondents have appointed the Special Prosecutor in connection with the trial S.T. No. 599/2013 pending before the ASJ, Indore. Brief facts of the case are that the accused petitioners have been prosecuted for offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC in connection with regard to the death of one Pramod Sisodiya. It was contended that the father of the petitioner No. 1, late Shri Shyamlal, was the member of the Mahawar Nagar Grah Nirman Society and he was allotted a plot No. 178/1, but the president of the said Society, who is also the deceased Pramod Sisodiya did not agree the registration of the said plot in the name of Shyamlal and it was alleged that there were serious irregularities in the working of the said society at the instance of Pramod Sisodiya and the said plot has been resold after the allotment to Shyamlal to various other persons in several times due to which various litigations are pending between the parties. On the date of incident, i.e., on 13-6-2013, the father of the petitioner No. 1-Bhrahmdutt had gone to the office of Mahawar Nagar Grah Nirman Society for obtaining the certified copy of the allotment of the plot to him and moved an application under Section 28(3) of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act. Similarly, various receipts of payment made by Shyamlal as the same was required to be filed in the civil suit pending between the parties before the Civil Judge, Class I, Indore and the next date of hearing in the matter was 19-6-2013. However, it was contended that there were heated argument between the father of the petitioner No. 1 and the deceased Pramod Sisodiya and he refused to accept the said application and during the heat of argument Pramod Sisodiya fell from the chair in the office of the Society and he was rushed to the hospital where he was declared to be dead. Thereafter, the Police Station, Annapurna has registered the merg and arrested Shyamlal, Bhramdutt and Sembar as accused persons in Crime No. 400/13 for offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC. However, the post-mortem report did not indicate any injury on the body of the deceased and it was stated by the son and other relative of the deceased that Pramod Sisodiya died due to anxiety. However, the challan papers have been put up by the Police Station, Annapurna and the trial commenced. After submission of the charge sheet, the Trial Court has framed the charges followed by submission of the trial programme by the Public Prosecutor on 14-8-13. The trial was continued up to 29-5-2014 and the said trial was numbered as S.T. No. 599/13. However, all of a sudden the respondent No. 1 on 22-5-2014 exercising the powers under Section 24(8) of the Cr.P.C. has appointed a Special Prosecutor for conducting of the said trial vide order (Annexure P-1). And hence, the present petition by the accused petitioners.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged that the trial was proceeding normally and suddenly the Special Prosecutor was thrust on the prosecution without assigning any reason. Counsel submitted that there is no material available on record to indicate that what the necessity to appoint such a Special Prosecutor to conduct the trial. Counsel submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons, whereas deceased Pramod Sisodiya was an anti-social element and having 8 criminal cases registered against him pertaining to offence under Sections 307, 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC. Counsel submitted that the evidence is likely to be tampered with and no reasons have been assigned for the appointment of Special Prosecutor. Hence, Counsel prayed that the impugned order be set aside. To bolster his submissions, Counsel relied on Mukul Dalai and others Vs. Union of India and others, 1988 3 SCC 144, whereby the Apex Court had held that under Sections 24(8) and 25(1) of the Cr.P.C. appointment of an Advocate as Special Prosecutor cannot be made on mere asking by private complainant. Request of the private complainant for such appointment must be examined by Legal Remembrancer on the basis of guidelines prescribed or to be prescribed and decision taken accordingly. Counsel also placed reliance on Poonamchand Jain Vs. State of M.P., 2001 5 MPHT 579, whereby this Court has also held that it is not found on record that the Public Prosecutor, who is in-charge of the case is incompetent to conduct the trial. Merely, because the crime is heinous is not a special ground for appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor. The Court had also held that tension and pressure of media are also not germane to the issue. No justifiable and reasonable ground for appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor and his appointment be quashed. However, it is also directed that the Special Public Prosecutor may assist the prosecution under the direction of the duly appointed Public Prosecutor with the permission of the Court.
(3.) Per contra, respondent No. 1/the Principal Secretary, Law Department, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal has filed reply and opposed the contentions of the Counsel for the petitioners and Counsel for the respondent/State submitted that the order was passed on administrative side and it is a matter of policy decision of the State Government and the order has been passed as per the powers available to the authority under the provisions of Section 24(8) of the Cr.P.C. and there are no mala fides in the order impugned nor any violation of the statutory provisions of law as alleged and then the scope of interference by this Court was not called for at all. In fact, the complainant, i.e., the relatives of the deceased have submitted an application wherein it was explicitly submitted that accused was having clout and they were continuously threatening the complainant party and other witnesses. And hence, it is necessary to appoint a Special Prosecutor so that the applicant may get justice in the matter. In this regard, the Collector vide his letter dated 5-10-13 sent his recommendation for appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor along the application of the complainant. The Superintendent of Police concerned also by his letter has opined that in the fitness of circumstances the appointment of Special Public Prosecutor was desirable. The Law Department also took up the matter and after obtaining the sanction from the Minister concerned also the order of appointment of Special Public Prosecutor was passed.;