Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed before the High Court of Karnataka under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to quash a Government Notification dated 21-12-2016 issued under Section 24(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which appointed the fifth respondent as Special Public Prosecutor in a murder case. The petitioner was an accused in the case, which arose from a complaint lodged on 21-03-2016 by the daughter of the deceased, alleging that her brother was assaulted and murdered. Based on the complaint, the police registered a case under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown persons. During investigation, the petitioner was arrested and charge-sheeted. In the bail proceedings that ensued, the fifth respondent had appeared as counsel for the complainant and opposed bail, both before the Sessions Court and the High Court. It was also alleged that the fifth respondent held press conferences and made public statements against the petitioner. After bail was granted, the State Government appointed the fifth respondent as Special Public Prosecutor, with the condition that the complainant would pay his fees. The petitioner challenged this appointment, contending that it violated his right to a fair trial because the Special Public Prosecutor would be biased, having previously represented the complainant and adopted a hostile stance. The core legal issue was whether such appointment would lead to an apprehension of unfair trial. The petitioner relied on several precedents, including K.V. Shiva Reddy v. State of Karnataka and Mukul Dalal v. Union of India, to argue that a person who had identified with the cause of the victim could not act as prosecutor. The respondents, including the State and the fifth respondent appearing in person, argued that there was no legal bar, the apprehension was baseless, and the court could regulate the proceedings to ensure fairness. They cited judgments such as Varada Rama Mohana Rao v. State of A.P. and others. The High Court pronounced its order on 30-09-2021, but the extract of the judgment ends at the commencement of the court's analysis, and thus the final holding and directions are not contained in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Appointment of Special Public Prosecutor - Fair Trial and Apprehension of Bias - Section 24(8), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The petitioner challenged the appointment of the fifth respondent as Special Public Prosecutor, alleging that his previous role as counsel for the complainant and media statements created a reasonable apprehension of bias, thereby threatening the fairness of the trial. The Court examined the contentions and precedents but the final holding is not recorded in the provided excerpt. (Paras 11-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointment of the 5th respondent as Special Public Prosecutor, who had previously appeared for the complainant in bail proceedings and allegedly conducted press conferences against the accused, would result in an apprehension of unfair trial.
Law Points
- Right to fair trial
- apprehension of bias
- role of Special Public Prosecutor
- Section 24(8) CrPC
- fair trial in criminal cases
