Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDismissed

Santhosh M.A. v. Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home Department, Government of Kerala; Secretary to Home Department, Home Department, Government of Kerala; District Police Chief, Kasaragod District; P. Rajeev, Advocate; Aravindan Manikoth; Latest Printing and Publishing Pvt. Ltd.; State of Kerala (through the C.I. of Police, Hosdurg Police Station)

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.12588 of 2015 (W)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C. T. Ravikumar
Judgment Date
2015-04-21
Court Decision / Holding
This writ petition is liable to fail; Ext.P1 is not interfered with and the appointment of Sri P. Rajeev as Special Public Prosecutor stands. The petition is dismissed.
Final Disposition
Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Santhosh M.A.

Respondents

  • Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home Department, Government of Kerala, Secretariat Thiruvananthapuram-695001
  • Secretary to Home Department, Home Department, Government of Kerala, Secretariat Thiruvananthapuram-695001
  • District Police Chief, Kasaragod District-671001
  • P.Rajeev Advocagte, Archana, Nadakkavu Cross Road Calicut-673011
  • Aravindan Manikoth; Latest Printing and Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Post Box No.40, Kanhangad, Kasaragod-671315
  • State of Kerala through the C.I. of Police, Hosdurg Police Station in Crime No.204/2002 represented by Public Prosecutor High Court of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. V. John Sebastian Ralph

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri. A. Sif Ali (Director General of Prosecution)
  • • Sri. T. R. Rajesh (Government Pleader)
  • • Sri. P. Rajeev (Advocate)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Santhosh M.A., the petitioner, was an accused in S.C.No.16 of 2007 before the Additional Sessions Court (Ad hoc-I), Kasaragod, charged under sections 304 and 307 read with 34 IPC. He challenged Ext.P1, an order appointing Sri P. Rajeev, Advocate, as Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the prosecution in the Sessions case. The core challenge was that Ext.P1 amounted to a non-speaking order and purportedly conflicted with principles laid down in Tera Chinnappa Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, as well as with earlier Kerala cases that such appointments should arise only where public interest is involved. The petitioner argued that, under CrPC, prosecution should normally be conducted by a government-appointed prosecutor, and any deviation requires strong public-interest reasons. The respondent-DGP defended Ext.P1, detailing that prior SPs (A.M. Viswanathan and P. Kumarankutty) were appointed for the crime, health issues led to replacements, and the Government issued Ext.P1 appointing Sri P. Rajeev. The court, noting that the petitioner had not challenged the earlier appointments and that no special circumstances were shown, held there was no basis to interfere with Ext.P1 and dismissed the petition. The order thus stands valid and operative in the ongoing SC No.16 of 2007 matter.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC sections 304, 307 read with 34 IPCCode of Criminal Procedure

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends Ext.P1 appointing Sri P. Rajeev as Special Public Prosecutor is a non-speaking order and contrary to the dictum in Tera Chinnappa Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (2014 KHC 2753). He relies on Abdul Khader v. Government of Kerala (1992 (2) KLT 948), Mrs. Mary Joosa v. State of Kerala (1997 KHC 296), and Narayanankutty v. State of Kerala & others (1982 KLT 605) to argue that such appointments should arise only when public interest is involved. He also asserts that under CrPC the prosecution should ordinarily be conducted by the government-appointed prosecutor, and deviations require special circumstances.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents rely on Ext.P1 and submit that appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor was warranted due to administrative realities, health issues of prior SPs, and the need to expedite the trial. They highlight that appointments of A.M. Viswanathan and P. Kumarankutty were made in earlier stages and that the accused lacked locus to challenge such appointments. They argue that Ext.P1 is a legitimate exercise of prosecutorial discretion in the public interest and that the petition has no merit to interfere with the ongoing proceedings.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Tera Chinnappa Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & others2014 KHC 2753Mentioned OnlyCited by petitioner; court mentions the decision but does not rely on it to grant relief.
Abdul Khader v. Government of Kerala1992 (2) KLT 948Mentioned OnlyCited as authority for public-interest conditions; court does not base its decision on it.
Mrs. Mary Joosa v. State of Kerala1997 KHC 296Mentioned OnlyCited in the context of public-interest-based appointment; not controlling the outcome.
Narayanankutty v. State of Kerala & others1982 KLT 605Mentioned OnlyCited as part of argument; court does not rely on it to decide in petitioner’s favor.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Santhosh M.A. v. Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home Department, Government of Kerala; Secretary to Home Department, Home Department, Government of Kerala; District Police Chief, Kasaragod District; P. Rajeev, Advocate; Aravindan Manikoth; Latest Printing and Publishing Pvt. Ltd.; State of Kerala (through the C.I. of Police, Hosdurg Police Station) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL 2015/1ST VAISAKHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 12588 of 2015 (W) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): - ----------------- SANTHOSH M.A. AGED 35 YEARS S/O AGASTHY, MATTATHIL VEEDU, CHERUPUZHA VILLAGE KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH RESPONDENT(S): - ------------------ 1. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF KASARGOD DISTRICT-671001. 4. P.RAJEEV ADVOCATE, ARCHANA, NADAKKAVU CROSS ROAD CALICUT-673011. 5. ARAVINDAN MANIKOTH LATEST PRINTING AND PUBLISHING PVT. LTD. POST BOX NO.40, KANHANGAD, KASARGOD-671315. 6. STATE OF KERALA - THROUGH THE C.I. OF POLICE, HOSDURG POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.204/2002 REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SRI.ASIF ALI BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.R.RAJESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-04-015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 12588 of 2015 (W) ---------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ----------------------------- EXHIBIT P1: ORDER DATED 26.2.2015 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL ---------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ========================== W.P.(C) No.12588 OF 2015 ==========================** Dated this the 21[st] day of April, 2015 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is one of the accused in S.C.No.16 of 2007 on the files of the Court of Additional Sessions Court (Ad hoc-I), Kasaragod. He is indicted therein for offences punishable under sections 304, 307 read with 34 IPC. The captioned writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P1 whereby Sri.P.Rajeev, Advocate, (Enrollment No.K/244/1989) was appointed as Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the prosecution in the aforesaid Sessions Case. Various contentions have been raised by the petitioner to assail Ext.P1. Firstly it is contended that it is a non-speaking order and therefore, it goes against the dictum laid down by this Court in **Tera Chinnappa Reddy** **v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & others** [ **2014 KHC 2753]** . That apart, it is contended that in the light of the decisions in **Abdul** **W.P.(C).12588/15** 2 **Khader v. Government of Kerala** [ **1992 (2) KLT 948], Mrs.Mary Joosa v. State of Kerala [1997 KHC 296]** and **Narayanankutty v. State of Kerala & others** [ **1982 KLT 605]** , such appointments shall be effected only if public interest is involved. It is the further contention of the petitioner that under normal circumstances, going by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the sessions trial shall be conducted only by the prosecutor appointed by the Government and therefore, a deviation from the general rule is possible and permissible only in circumstances where public interest is involved. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Director General of Prosecution. The learned Director General of Prosecution submitted that even at the crime stage (Crime No.208 of Hosdurg Police Station), the Government appointed Sri.A.M.Viswanathan as Special Public Prosecutor. Later, he **W.P.(C).12588/15** 3 requested for appointment of another Special Public Prosecutor stating his inability to continue as Special Public Prosecutor owing to his ill-health. Consequently, the Government issued G.O.(Rt) No.2239/2013/Home dated 16.8.2013 appointing Sri.P.Kumarankutty, Advocate, Roll No.K/183/73 in place of Sri.A.M.Viswanathan as the Special Public Prosecutor in the aforesaid Sessions Case. After conducting the investigation, final report was laid in the said crime and after its committal, in accordance with law, now it is pending as S.C.No.16 of 2007. Adv. Sri.P.Kumarankutty who was appointed as Special Public Prosecutor subsequently got elected as a member in one of the Local Self Government Institutions. It was in such circumstances that the Government was constrained to effect appointment of Sri.P.Rajeev as per Ext.P1, it is submitted by the learned Director General of Prosecution. The learned Director General of Prosecution furnished copies of the Government Orders revealing the appointment of Sri.A.M.Viswanathan and **W.P.(C).12588/15** 4 Sri.P.Kumarankutty. There is nothing on record to show that the appointment of Sri.A.M.Viswanathan and subsequent appointment of Sri.P.Kumarankutty were challenged successfully either by the petitioner as also any of the accused in the aforesaid crime. The learned DGP further submitted that in fact, the accused cannot have any locus standi to challenge the appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor. Though this position is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner I do not think that this Court should go into such details or to consider the contentions raised by the petitioner based on the decisions referred (supra) in view of the admitted position that he did not challenge either the appointment of Sri.A.M.Viswanathan or subsequent appointment of Sri.P.Kumarankutty as Special Public Prosecutor in the aforesaid Sessions Case. The petitioner has not raised any special circumstances disentitling Sri.P.Rajeev to function as the Special Public Prosecutor, in the aforesaid Sessions Case. He has raised only the general points, as aforesaid, which in view of the **W.P.(C).12588/15** 5 admitted position pale into insignificance having regard to the aforesaid factual position obtained in this case. In such circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with Ext.P1. This writ petition is liable to fail and accordingly, it is dismissed. **Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **spc/** **W.P.(C).12588/15** 6 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **JUDGMENT September, 2010** # **W.P.(C).12588/15** 7