Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Shivaji Rajaram Take and Sharad Shivaji Take, are the original accused in Sessions Case No.12 of 2020 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Newasa, District Ahmednagar. They filed a Criminal Writ Petition challenging the Notification dated 30 September 2021 issued by the State of Maharashtra appointing respondent No.2, Ujwala S. Pawar, as a Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the said sessions case. They also challenged the order dated 11 February 2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Newasa, below Exhibit-101, which rejected their application seeking the removal of respondent No.2 as Special Public Prosecutor on grounds of alleged bias and conflict of interest. The petitioners contended that respondent No.2 had a prior professional relationship with the victim's family, which would prejudice their case. The court heard arguments from the petitioners' counsel, the State's APP, and the counsel for respondent No.2. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 24(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which empowers the State Government to appoint Special Public Prosecutors. The court noted that the appointment was made by the State Government after considering the gravity of the offence and the need for a special prosecutor. The court further observed that the alleged acquaintance of respondent No.2 with the victim's family was purely professional and did not indicate any personal bias or conflict of interest. The trial court had also rejected the application after considering the material on record. The High Court held that the petitioners failed to establish any bias or prejudice, and the appointment was valid. Consequently, the court dismissed the criminal writ petition and the connected criminal application, upholding the appointment and the trial court's order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Appointment of Special Public Prosecutor - Section 24(8) CrPC - Bias - The court considered whether the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor who had professional acquaintance with the victim's family is invalid. Held that mere professional acquaintance does not constitute bias or conflict of interest, and the appointment was validly made by the State Government under Section 24(8) CrPC. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Procedure - Removal of Special Public Prosecutor - Bias - The court examined the order rejecting the accused's application for removal of the Special Public Prosecutor. Held that the trial court correctly found no bias, as the prosecutor's acquaintance was professional and not personal, and the accused failed to demonstrate any prejudice. (Paras 11-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointment of respondent No.2 as Special Public Prosecutor is vitiated due to alleged bias or conflict of interest, and whether the order rejecting the petitioners' application for her removal is sustainable.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the Criminal Writ Petition and the connected Criminal Application, upholding the appointment of respondent No.2 as Special Public Prosecutor and the trial court's order rejecting the removal application.
Law Points
- Appointment of Special Public Prosecutor
- Bias
- Conflict of Interest
- Section 24 CrPC
- Professional Acquaintance
- Victim's Rights
