news details |
|
|
| HC sets-aside SRO 33 appointing private Adv as | | Special PP in a murder case | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Feb06- While setting aside the SRO 33 of January 30, 2008 whereby the
Government has appointed Advocate Satish Chander Gupta, as Special Public
Prosecutor in a murder case pending before the Sessions Judge, Udhampur, Justice
Hakim Imtiyaz Hussain of Jammu and Kashmir High Court has observed that there is
no material on record to show that the public prosecutor, who is incharge of the cases, is
not competent to conduct trial or the prosecution properly and efficiently.
The petitioners Vijay Singh and others facing trial in a murder case have challenged the appointment of Special Public Prosecutor on the ground that said Special PP, who is private legal practitioner and remained counsel for the deceased and other prosecution witnesses, was appointed on the application filed by the brother of the deceased and petitioners in these circumstances apprehend that they may not get a fair impartial trial as the said prosecutor will act on the instructions of the prosecution witnesses and will not conduct the trial impartially.
Justice Hussain, after hearing Senior Advocate MK Bhardwaj appearing for the petitioners and Additional Advocate General AH Qazi appearing for the state respondent and Anil Khajuria Advocate appearing for the private respondents observed that Court is of the view that is no sufficient ground for change of the public prosecutor and appointment of Special PP. There is no material to show that the public prosecutor who is Incharge of the cases is not competent to conduct trial or he will not conduct the prosecution properly and effectively. On the contrary, there are circumstances to show that the special PP has remained the counsel of the deceased in some cases. In these circumstances, Court finds that the impugned order in the present petition cannot sustain. This petition is allowed and SRO 33 of dated January 30, 2008 is set-aside with the observation that nothing prevents the Government to appoint a Special PP provided there are sufficient reasons for the same and state feels it proper in public interest. Court leaves it to the State Government to re-examine the matter and find out whether there are sufficient reasons for appointment of Special PP in case the reasons are available and the Government is satisfied that the present Public Prosecutor cannot conduct the case for the state effectively, an impartial and competent advocate can be appointed for the job.
This judgment was announced by Justice Sunil Hali on behalf of Justice Hakim Imtiyaz Hussain. JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
