Allowed

Sri. Ditul Mehta v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Nov 2024WP/2203/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition to quash a government order appointing a Special Public Prosecutor. The order had conditioned the appointment on the complainant bearing the prosecutor's professional fees. The Court held such a condition rendered the appointment contrary to the Cr.P.C. and unsustainable, citing Co-ordinate Bench precedents.

What did the court decide?

Impugned government order bearing No. PE 224 PPE 2021 dated 19.06.2023 is quashed.

Sri. Ditul Mehta Vs State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:47797 WP No. 2203 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 2203 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. DITUL MEHTA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O. SRI. YESHWANT MEHTA, RESIDENT OF NO. E-5, 2ND A CROSS, MANYATHA TECH PARK, RACHENAHALLI, NAGAVARA, BENGALURU-560 045.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA K., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶13

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

SMT. VASHANTHI. D. L. ADVOCATE, NO. 468, 8TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 040.

¶15

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER BASAVANAGUDI WOMENS POLICE STATION,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:47797 WP No. 2203 of 2024

¶18

BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 004.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. K P YOGANNA, AGA FOR R1, R2 & R4 SRI. RENY SEBASTIAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER BEARING NO. PE 224 PPE 2021 DATED 19/06/2023 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A IN THE WP.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is facing charges under Sections 323, 354(A)(B), 498-A, 304, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 34 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in Crime No. [insert number]. In the said criminal proceedings, the 2nd respondent appointed the 3rd respondent as the Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the trial in C.C. No. 11856/2021.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the primary ground for challenging the notification appointing the 3rd respondent as the Special Public Prosecutor is that the complainant is required to bear the professional fees and charges payable to the Special Public Prosecutor. This, he argues, is impermissible based on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 1202/2012, disposed of on 01.06.2015. He further submits that the marriage between the petitioner and the 5th respondent has been mutually dissolved.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:47797 WP No. 2203 of 2024

¶28

The learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) for the respondent-State submits that the notification appointing the 3rd respondent as the Special Public Prosecutor was issued in accordance with Section 24(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), and therefore, does not warrant any interference.

¶29

Section 24(8) of the Cr.P.C. provides that the State Government may appoint, for the purposes of any case or class of cases, a person who has practiced as an advocate for not less than ten years as a Special Public Prosecutor.

¶30

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 1202/2012, relying on the decision in K.V. Shiva Reddy v. State of Karnataka & Others (2005 Crl.L.J. 3000), ruled that the direction requiring the complainant to pay the professional charges of the Special Public Prosecutor is not legally sustainable.

¶31

Consequently, the impugned notification issued by the 2nd respondent, directing the de facto complainant to pay the professional fees or charges to the Special Public Prosecutor, is not legally sustainable. The appointment of the 3rd respondent as the Special Public Prosecutor in this manner is contrary to Section 24(8) of the Cr.P.C.

¶32

The Co-ordinate Bench, in K.V. Shiva Reddy (supra), specifically addressed this issue in paragraph 32, which states:

¶33

32. In the matter of remuneration payable to the Special Public Prosecutor, ordinarily the Special Public Prosecutor should be paid out of the State funds even when he appears in support of a private complainant. But there may be some special cases where Special

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:47797 WP No. 2203 of 2024

¶35

Public Prosecutors remuneration may be collected from private source. The rate of fees should be prescribed and the complainant should be called upon to deposit the fees in advance to the Government and the Special Public Prosecutor be paid out of the said amount by the Government. To leave the complainant to pay to the Special Public Prosecutor would indeed not be appropriate. If he looks to a private party for his remuneration, his capacity and ability to perform his role as Public Prosecutor properly will be endangered. Government cannot appoint Special Public Prosecutor on such terms, abdicating their financial responsibility or directing him to receive his remuneration from any private individual. Then it introduces an advocate-client relationship, a personal element from which the Public Prosecutor must be considered immune. He is above the personal loyalty. He does not have a dual capacity.

¶36

In light of the above, the appointment of the 3rd respondent as the Special Public Prosecutor, under the condition that the complainant bears the professional fees, is not legally sustainable. Accordingly I pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i) The petition is allowed.

¶39

ii) The impugned government order bearing No.PE 224 PPE 2021 dated 19.06.2023 passed by the first respondent at annexure-A is hereby quashed.

¶40

iii) Liberty is reserved with the respondent No.2 to appoint Special Public Prosecutor strictly in accordance with law.

¶41

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶42