[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ::O R D E R: RAM NIWAS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2000/2008 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. DATE OF ORDER :: March 25, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Pradeep Choudhary for petitioner. BY THE COURT : The petitioner, who is facing trial for offence under Sec.498A and 304 IPC in the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur, has preferred this writ petition challenging the validity of order Annex.P/2 dated 27.02.2008, whereby for conducting the case against the petitioner accused on behalf of prosecution in place of regular Public Prosecutor Shri Gambhir Singh Rathore, Shri Nand Kishore Acharya, Advocate has been appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor. [2] Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that this order is per-se illegal because no reasons have been assigned for appointment of Shri Nand Kishore Acharya as Special Public Prosecutor in place of regular Public Prosecutor Shri Gambhir Singh Rathore. Learned counsel has invited my attention towards the judgment reported in 2002 (1) Cr.L.R. [Raj.] 498 – Madho Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., and submitted that as no reasons have been assigned in the order impugned for appointment of Special Public Prosecutor by the State Govt. vide order Annex.P/2, therefore, this order is illegal. On a pointed querry made to the counsel for the petitioner as to how he has the locus standi to challenge the order Annex.P/2, whereby the State Govt. has appointed a Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the case on behalf of the prosecution, the learned counsel for the petitioner replied that he is facing trial and in his case without assigning any reason the State Govt. has passed an order of appointment of Shri Nand Kishore Acharya, Advocate to conduct the case against him as Special Public Prosecutor, therefore, he is having locus standi to challenge his [3] appointment. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that out of 24 witnesses, statements of 14 witnesses have already been recorded, therefore, at this stage the appointment of Special Public Prosecutor without assigning any reason is illegal. It is further submitted that appointment of Special Public Prosecutor is made upon the application filed by the complainant, therefore, it is obvious that under the political influence appointment of Special Public Prosecutor has been made, therefore, order Annex.P/2 deserves to be quashed. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I am not inclined to accept the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that he is an aggrieved party in this case and has locus standi to challenge the order of appointment of Special Public Prosecutor. It is well within the jurisdiction that the State authorities being a welfare State to appoint any advocate for proper assistance and to prosecute case on behalf of prosecution that cannot be questioned by the accused, who is facing trial in a criminal case. Therefore, this writ petition has been filed by a person, who has no locus standi to challenge the order of appointment of [4] Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the case from the side of prosecution by the State. Hence this petition is dismissed. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS) J. jpa/