: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 210 OF 2009 Pradip @ Raju Patil .. Petitioner v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents ........ Mr. Niranjan Mundargi for petitioner. Smt. V.R. Bhosale, APP for State. Mr. Ramesh Dube­Patil i/by Jay and Co. for respondent No.8. ........ CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. Dated : 27th November, 2009. P.C. : 1. In this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is accused No.2 in Sessions Case No.127 of 2007 has brought in question a Notification dated 2.12.2008 issued by the Government of Maharashtra through its Law and Judiciary Department thereby appointing respondent No.7 Shri V.V. Parakh as a Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the trial on behalf of the State of Maharashtra in the said case. By an order dated 09.2.2009, operation of the notification was stayed by this Court but it was directed that the trial may go on and would be conducted by the Public Prosecutor available with the Court. We are informed that on account of the vacancy of the : 2 : Presiding Officer, the trial has not yet started. 2. In the case of Prakash P. Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2008 All MR (Cri.) 2051, a similar notification was set aside by us and our decision was subject matter of appeal in Criminal Appeal No.748 of 2009 before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court vide its order dated 16.4.2009 has allowed the appeal filed by the State Government and has, inter alia, held that the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor to conduct a trial does not in any way cause prejudice to the accused, and therefore, the writ petition before this Court was misconceived. Consequently, the impugned judgment rendered by us was set aside by the Supreme Court. 3. By following the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Prakas P. Patil in Criminal Appeal No.748 of 2009 challenge to the Notification dated 02.12.2008 is unsustainable and hence this petition must fail at the threshold. Hence, the petition is rejected. Ad­interim order passed earlier stands vacated. [R.Y.GANOO, J.] [B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.]