IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2008 / 13TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 348 of 2008(N) ------------------------ SC.847/2004 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- KELAPPAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. KADUNGAN, KALLUPARAMBATH HOUSE,NEDUMANNUR P.O VIA. KAKKATTIL, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHAN V.NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY (HOME & VIGILANCE), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C). No.348 Of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT In this writ petition, filed by the de facto complainant in S.C.No.847 of 2004 now pending for trial on the file of the Sessions Court (Fast Track-1), Kozhikode for offences punishable under Sections 323,324,427,308 read with 34 IPC, the petitioner seeks a direction to the State of Kerala to take immediate steps on Ext.P3 application filed by him under Section 24(8) Cr.P.C. for the appointment of any of the named Advocates therein as Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the above Sessions case. 2. According to the petitioner, the accused persons are CPI(M) activists and the Prosecutor in charge of the case is not showing any serious interest in prosecuting the case presumably due to political affiliation. 3. Since the case which is pending before the Additional Sessions Court has reached the stage of trial, the trial of the case cannot be allowed to be dislocated. Merely because the petitioner has at the eleventh hour chosen to move the Government under Section 24(8) Cr.P.C, for the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor, the trial of the case cannot be stopped. If the petitioner is desirous of W.P.C. No.348 of 2007 2 ventilating his grievances with the help of an Advocate of his choice for the reason that the Police in charge of the crime is lethargic in the proper conduct of the case, he can engage a counsel of his choice under Section 301 Cr.P.C and the said counsel who is acting under the directions of the Public Prosecutor in charge of the case has got all the powers of a Public Prosecutor and can examine or cross-examine the withnesses as held in the decisions Hamsa v.Assistant Public Prosecutor ( 1978 KLT 816), Shiv Kumar v. Hukum Chand & another (1999(7)SCC 467), Umanath v. State of Kerala (1999 (2) KLT 492. This writ petition is dismissed with the above observations. (V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE) sj