1. Rule.
2. The present Petition has been filed by the Petitioners - Original Accused under Articles 14, 16, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Law Officers Rules, 2009 for the prayer that:
“(A) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit this Special Criminal Application
(B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this Special Criminal Application by quashing and setting the order passed for appointment of respondent No.3 as Special Public Prosecutor at Annexure-A in the interest of justice.
(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant stay as to execution, implementation and operation of the order of appointment of respondent No.3 as Special Public Prosecutor at Annexure-A in the interest of justice.
(D) ...
3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. R.C.Sejpal for the Petitioners. He has referred to the papers and submitted that the appointment of the Respondent No.3 as a Special Prosecutor by order at Annexure-A is illegal and it is based on political consideration. He has also referred to the ground mentioned in the Petition to support his submission. He has also stated that the concept of fair trial requires that the Petitioners – Original Accused should be treated as innocent till the trial is over recording the conviction, and therefore, the present Petition may be allowed. He has also stated that the Respondent No.3 had appeared in one another matter for some of the accused (Petitioner No.1 herein) and therefore the Respondent No.3 could not have remained present as Special Prosecutor in Sessions Case against the present Petitioners. Therefore also he has submitted that the appointment of Special Prosecutor may be set aside. Learned Advocate Mr. Sejpal has submitted that in this very matter, earlier by order dated 25.2.2011 the High Court had directed the representation to be decided by the competent authority after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners, and therefor also, the hearing or the trial may be postponed till the decision is taken.
4. Learned Counsel Shri K.B.Anandjiwala for the Original Complainant has submitted that it is not correct to say that the Respondent No.3 had represented the Petitioner or some of the accused in another case, for which he has produced copy of the judgment, and submitted that one Advocate Shri C.H.Shukla had represented.
5. In view of this rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present Petition can be entertained or not.
6. The moot question, which is required to be considered is whether the Petitioners can have any say in the matter regarding appointment of the Special Prosecutor in Sessions Case against them. It is obligation for the State to appoint Special Prosecutor in a criminal justice system to prosecute the guilty or the accused. The submission made by learned Advocate Mr. Sejpal that the concept of fair trial that they should be treated as innocent is thoroughly misconceived as they have not been held guilty, and the fair trial would mean that every opportunity should be provided to the accused persons and the matter or the trial should be conducted in fair manner in accordance with law. It is not the case that any opportunity has been denied or the matter is not being proceeded in accordance with law. The grievance made is that the appointment of Special Prosecutor in Sessions Case against them should not be made and the appointment of Special Prosecutor is out of the political reasons is misconceived. It is well accepted that in many cases, the services of the Advocate as Special Prosecutor to conduct a particular matter is taken so that proper assistance is rendered to the Court and also the case of the State or the prosecution is conducted in an effective manner. Therefore, the accused persons cannot have any say in the matter as to which Prosecutor should conduct the trial of the case where they are accused. If that be considered, it would be counter productive to the public interest inasmuch as the accused may not have like the effective trial by a competent prosecutor resulting in acquittal. In the present case also the underlying purpose for such litigation appears to be such that the prosecution should not be by a competent prosecutor which can result in a benefit to the accused, like the Petitioners, which would run counter to the public interest as well as in the interest of the society in criminal justice system. The criminal justice system oblige the State to conduct the trial and assist the Court effectively so as to do the justice, not only to the complainant but also to the victim and the society as a whole, and therefore, such submissions, to say the least, are thoroughly misconceived without any basis or foundation and the present Petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed.
Rule is discharged.
(Rajesh H. Shukla,J) Jayanti*