Case Note & Summary
Background: The case arose from appeals against conviction in a high-profile disproportionate assets case involving a former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and others. The appellant, a senior politician and General Secretary of DMK, filed a writ petition seeking removal of the Special Public Prosecutor representing the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption in those appeals, alleging bias and conflict of interest. Facts: The trial, originally filed in Tamil Nadu, was transferred to Karnataka by the Supreme Court in 2003 due to apprehension of biased prosecution. A Special Court was constituted in Bangalore, and a former Advocate General was appointed as Special Public Prosecutor. When he resigned in 2013, the State of Karnataka appointed the 5th respondent as his successor. The appellant challenged that appointment, and during the pendency of that challenge, the State Government withdrew the appointment without consulting the Chief Justice. The Supreme Court, in (2014) 2 SCC 401, quashed the withdrawal, holding it was tainted by malafides and restored the 5th respondent’s appointment. The trial ended in conviction on 27.09.2014. The convicted persons filed criminal appeals and also a bail application, which was initially rejected by the High Court but granted by the Supreme Court on 17.10.2014. For the appeals, the Tamil Nadu Government authorised the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to engage the 5th respondent as its prosecutor. The appellant then moved the High Court under Article 226 seeking a direction to appoint another senior lawyer as Special Public Prosecutor. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 19.01.2015, leading to this writ appeal. Legal Issues: Whether the engagement of the 5th respondent by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption suffered from bias or legal malafides; whether the appellant had locus standi to challenge that engagement; and whether the appointment complied with Section 24(8) CrPC and principles of fair trial. Arguments: The appellant contended that the 5th respondent was hand-in-glove with the accused, his removal was earlier quashed on malafides, his appointment was not preceded by consultation with the Chief Justice, and his continuance would subvert the appeals. The State and the prosecutor argued that the engagement was by the Directorate, a party to the appeals, and not by the State Government; thus, no consultation was required. They relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment that had found no infirmity in the 5th respondent’s appointment and had struck down the removal. Court's Analysis: The Division Bench examined the entire history and the Supreme Court’s findings. It held that once the Supreme Court had restored the 5th respondent’s appointment, the same grounds could not be re-agitated. The engagement by the Directorate was valid under Section 24(8) read with Sections 301 and 302 CrPC. The court distinguished between appointment by the State Government and engagement by a party. The appellant’s plea of bias was based on events already considered and rejected by the higher court. No new material was shown to establish malafides. The court emphasised that fair trial includes the interests of all stakeholders and that the prosecutor’s role in defending a conviction on appeal does not create a conflict of interest. Decision: The appeal was dismissed. The engagement of the 5th respondent as Special Public Prosecutor was upheld, holding that no case of bias or malafides was made out.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Public Prosecutor - Locus Standi - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 24, 301, 302 - A third party can challenge the engagement of a Special Public Prosecutor if there is a reasonable apprehension of bias or conflict of interest affecting fair trial, but the burden is heavy. The Supreme Court having already upheld the appointment of the same prosecutor and quashed his removal, the challenge on similar grounds does not survive. Held, the appellant failed to demonstrate any fresh ground of bias or malafides. (Paras 13-15) B) Criminal Procedure - Special Public Prosecutor - Engagement by Party - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 24(8), 301 - The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, being a party to the criminal appeals, is entitled to engage a Special Public Prosecutor of its choice. Such engagement does not require consultation with the Chief Justice. The Supreme Court having set aside the removal of the same prosecutor, the engagement cannot be faulted as suffering from bias. Held, the engagement is valid. (Paras 16-17) C) Constitutional Law - Fair Trial - Malafides - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13, Indian Penal Code, Section 120-B - Allegations of bias against a Special Public Prosecutor must be proved with strong and cogent evidence. When the Supreme Court, in a previous proceeding, quashed the removal of the same prosecutor on the ground that it was tainted by malafides, the same cannot be re-agitated. Apprehension of bias must be reasonable; here, the appellant's case was based on facts already considered and rejected. Held, no case of malafides or conflict of interest established. (Paras 15-17)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the engagement of the 5th respondent as Special Public Prosecutor by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption in the criminal appeals against conviction suffers from any legal infirmity, bias, or malafides, and whether the appellant has locus standi to challenge such engagement.
Final Decision
Writ appeal dismissed; engagement of 5th respondent as Special Public Prosecutor upheld; no merit found in allegations of bias or malafides.
Law Points
- Engagement of a Special Public Prosecutor by a party to the proceedings is permissible under Section 24(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1973
- allegations of bias must be based on reasonable apprehension and proven malafides
- the burden to show malafides lies on the party alleging
- the Supreme Court's findings on the appointment are binding
- fair trial includes interest of the accused
- victim
- and society
