THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.A.1215 OF 2008, WA (SR) 109236 OF 2008, WP.19231 OF 2008, WA.1254 OF 2008 and W.A.1498 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) Since all these matters involve a common questions of law, they are being taken up together for disposal, though each varies on facts. In WA.1215 of 2008 and WA (SR) 109236 of 2008 the State of A.P is the appellant, filed as against the interim orders of suspending the impugned proceedings by the learned Single Judge in WPMP.No.25088 and 25089 of 2008 in WP.19231 of 2008. When these appeals came up for hearing, at the request and consent of the counsel on either side, the main writ petition in WP.19231 of 2008 itself was taken up for final disposal. In WP.19231 of 2008 the petitioners are the Margadarshi Financers and Sri Ramoji Rao, who sought for Writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned proceedings in G.O.Rt.No.315 Law (LA & J. Home-‘A2’) Department dated 19-02-2007 issued by the State Government purportedly in exercise of powers under sub-section 8 of Section 24 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 appointing the respondent No.2 as a Special Public Prosecutor under Section 45 T (1) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 for the purpose of filing of applications and complaints under Section 58 (E) of the said Act and prosecute them, as arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and Section 24 of Code of Criminal Procedure and quash CC.No.540 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The main thrust put forth on behalf of the petitioners in the writ petition was that the procedure as contemplated under sub-clauses 4 and 5 of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not followed, while appointing the 2nd respondent as Special Public Prosecutor under Section 24 (8) of the Code. In support reliance was placed on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in PARAMJIT SINGH SADANA v STATE OF A.P[1]. Further it was contended that the respondent being a designated Senior Advocate, it is not permissible to appoint him as a Special Public Prosecutor in view of the bar under the Rules applicable to Senior Advocates, and therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated and liable to be set aside. After hearing the learned Advocate General who sought to rely on the decisions reported in JAYENDRA SARASWATI SWAMIGAL @SUBRAMANIAM v STATE OF TAMIL NADU[2] and that of Patna High Court in SHANKAR SINHA v STATE OF BIHAR[3] the learned Single Judge initially granted interim orders suspending the impugned proceedings, pending disposal of the writ petition. Hence, the appeals. During the course of hearing of these appeals, as stated above the main writ petition was taken up. Learned Advocate General pointed out that as against the decision of the learned Single Judge in PARAMJIT SINGH SADANA (Supra 1) the State has preferred regular appeals in WA.1254 of 2008 and WA.266 of 1999. Hence, at their request, these appeals also are taken up for disposal. Sri C.Padbhanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submitted that the impugned proceedings appointing the respondent No.2 as a Special Public Prosecutor warrants applicability of the procedure as contemplated under Sub-sections 4 and 5 of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and further sub-clause 8 of Section 24 as such, does not prescribe any guidelines except prescribing a requirement of standing at the Bar. Therefore, without following the procedure provided in the preceding clauses, no such appointment can be made. Whereas the present appointment being done without following such procedure, is not sustainable. That apart, it was contended that the respondent No.2 is a designated senior advocate and therefore having regard to the terms, conditions and restrictions imposed under the Rules framed under The Advocates Act, 1961, no such appointment can be made to the post, and therefore, either way the appointment of respondent No.2 is vitiated and liable to be set aside. Further, it was contended that there being no request by the complainant in the Criminal Case prior to the appointment was made. Hence, there is absolutely no warrant for appointing a Special Public Prosecutor. Even otherwise, it was contended that there should be a proper consultation prior to the decision of appointing of a Special Public Prosecutor. The learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the above referred decision of the learned Single judge in PARAMJIT SINGH SADANA (Supra 1) wherein it was held that in the absence of follow up procedure as contemplated under sub-clauses 4 and 5, the appointment under sub-clause (8) is not valid. The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State supporting the impugned proceedings submitted that all the pleas which are sought to be raised are not found place in the pleadings and there is no averment of any bias or prejudice by the writ petitioners, and therefore, nothing can be assailed against such appointment. Further, contending that the decision of the learned Single judge reported in PARAMJIT SINGH SADANA (Supra 1) requires reconsideration, the appeals of which are also being heard, it was submitted that the powers conferred under sub-clause (8) is totally independent and nothing to do with the power or procedure as contemplated in the earlier sub-clauses under Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore such procedure has no application, and the only requirement is of 10 years standing at the Bar, which is enough to consider for such appointment. There being no challenge as to the validity or vires of the sub-clause (8) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner cannot make any grievance for absence of any guidelines or procedure. The provisions of Section 45 (S), 58 (a), 58 (b) and 58 (e) and 45 T (1) of the Reserve Bank of India Act also justifies such exercise. The learned Advocate General submitted that the present appointment is only for the purpose of special reasons and under a special enactment therefore the same is valid. It was pointed out that even though the seizure was affected long back against the petitioners and pending for quite some time and steps have been taken to effect seizure etc, yet no objection was taken by the petitioner against such appointment. Therefore the present plea apart from being a belated one is wholly unsustainable. Supporting the appointment of the respondent No.2, the learned Advocate General contended that there is no specific bar or any prescription in appointing such designated senior advocates under the Rules framed under the Advocates Act by the Bar Council, nothing can be deduced nor the same would become invalid. Even other wise, if there is any violation, the petitioner has got an alternative remedy to approach the Bar Council for proper grievance. Therefore, it is contended that since the respondent No.2 in spite of the fact that was designated as senior advocate remains as an advocate, which is the core for consideration for appointment of Special Public Prosecutor, hence, there is no illegality. In reply, Sri C. Padbhanabha Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel once again reiterated the restrictions imposed under the provisions of the Advocates Act and the Rules made therein, especially, in regard to the designated senior advocates and contended that no such appointment would have been made and therefore the entire proceedings are invalid. In the other two appeals arising against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge in PARAMJIT SINGH SADANA (Supra 1) on the point, the learned Advocate General reiterated the same submissions which have been repelled by the learned Senior counsel Sri T.Bali Reddy, though however pointing out that except for purpose of academic consideration of the question involved factually nothing remains to be interfered with having regard to the progress made in the case. However, Sri T.Bali Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel supported the contentions and stand taken by Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy. Thus, considering the various submissions from the counsel on either side and on the perusal of the material on record, the point which arises for consideration, firstly, whether the procedure as contemplated under sub-clauses 4 and 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would have any application and mandatory for the purpose of exercise of powers under clause (8) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?, and Secondly is as to whether on the facts and circumstances the appointment of a designated senior counsel as a Special Public Prosecutor under Section 24 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is valid? For the convenience of the question involved the relevant provision which requires to be considered is Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as follows: (1) For every High Court, the Central Government or the State Government shall, after consultation with the High Court, appoint a Public Prosecutor and may also appoint one or more Additional Public Prosecutor for conducting in such court, any prosecution, appeal or other proceeding on behalf of the Central Government or State Government, as the case may be. (2) The Central Government may appoint one or more Public Prosecutors for the purpose of conducting any case or class of cases in any district, or local area. (3) For every districts the State Government shall appoint a Public Prosecutor and may also appoint one or more Additional Public Prosecutors for the district Provided that the Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor appointed for one district may be appointed also to be a Public Prosecutor or an Additional Public Prosecutor, as the case may be, for another district. (4) The District Magistrate shall, in consolation with the Sessions Judge, prepare, a panel of names of persons, who are, in his opinion fit to be appointed as Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutors for the district. (5) No person shall be appointed by the State Government as the Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor for the district unless his name appears in the panel of names prepared by the District Magistrate under sub-section(4). (6) Not withstanding anything contained in sub-section (5), where in a State there exists a regular Cadre of Prosecuting Officers, the State Government shall appoint a Public Prosecutor or an Additional Public Prosecutor only from among the persons constituting, such Cadre: Provided that where, in the opinion of the State Government, no suitable person is available in such Cadre for such appointment that Government may appoint a person as Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor, as the case may be, from the panel of names prepared by, the District Magistrate under sub-section (4). (7) A person shall be eligible to be appointed as a public Prosecutor under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) or sub-section (6), only if he has been in practice as an advocate for not less than seven years. (8) The Central Government or the State Government may appoint, for the purposes of any case or class of cases, a person who has been in practice as an advocate for not less than ten years as a Special Public Prosecutor. (9) For the purposes of sub-section (7) and sub-section (8), the period during which a person has been in practice, is a pleader, or has rendered (whether before or after the commencement of this Code) service as a Public Prosecutor or as an Additional Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor or other Prosecuting Officer, by whatever name called, shall be deemed to be the period during which such person has been in practice as an advocate.] Coming to the ground situation, dehors the facts involved, at the outset on a reading of the above provision, it falls in Chapter 2 of the code, referring to the constitution of the criminal Courts and offices and the contemplation is for appointing a Public Prosecutor and the Additional Public Prosecutors in the High Court, apart from the Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors for the Districts. Sub clause 1 and 2 take care of the procedure for appointing the Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors in High Court for conducting the prosecution, appeal or other proceedings on behalf of the Central or State Governments. Similarly, sub clauses 3 to 7 take care of the appointments and certain other aspects in regard to the Public Prosecutors or Additional Public Prosecutors in the districts for the self same reason of conducting the cases on behalf of the State. In the process of such an appointment for those posts, sub clause 4 envisages that appointment shall be made by the concerned District Magistrate in consultation of the Sessions Judge from the panel of names of the persons who are fit to be appointed as such. Sub Section 5 specifically bars any appointment of a person to the said office unless the name appears in the panel of the names prepared by the District Magistrate under sub clause 4 as mentioned above. Sub clause 6 envisages for appointment to the office from the regular cadre of prosecuting officers dehors the bar prescribed under sub clause 5. Sub clause 7 envisages a qualification of having a standing or practice as an advocate for not less than 7 years. Thus, from these above provisions, the process of appointment has to be only by means of panel, except to the extent of a regular cadre of prosecuting officers, even though, there is no such specific prescription provided for similar offices in the High Court under sub clauses 1 and 2. Now comes the sub clause 8 where it is contemplated for appointment of a person as a Special Public Prosecutor. The only qualification prescribed therefore is a standing or practice at the Bar as an Advocate for not less than 10 years. Sub clause 9 is enabling provision for the purpose of calculating the practicing period in respect of those who already held similar such office. The other requirement under sub clause 8 is that such appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor can be for the purpose of any case or class of cases. The power to appoint a person to any of these three classes of offices at different situations and stages vests with the Government, the Central or the State and such power is a discretionary one. However, a clear distinction is apparent between the first of such type of office with that of the second one, viz., in regard to the appointment to an office in the High Court or as a Special Public Prosecutor, as evident from the sub clause 1 and 2 on the one side and sub clause 8 on the other, no consultation or preparation of a panel is envisaged. It is only in regard to the appointment to such office for a District, the consultation and panel is required to be followed and having regard to the expression “shall” which is used, undoubtedly the same is mandatory, which gets further reiteration under sub clause 5 thereof. Therefore, such a condition precedent cannot be dispensed with. Further without following such procedure, any appointment made in the teeth of the said provision would be illegal. In respect of first two classes of offices viz., for the purpose of High Court and in the Districts, the office is described as Public Prosecutor, which is defined under section 2 (v) of the Code, which reads as follows;. “PUBLIC PROSECUTOR means any person appointed under section 24, and includes any person acting under the directions of a public prosecutor.” Thus, it only relates to the nature of appointment of a person to such an office. However, the expression “Special Public Prosecutor” as contemplated under sub clause 8 of section 24 of the Code, does not get defined in the Code. Therefore, necessarily it need not tale in all the connotations of an office of a regular Public Prosecutor. The expression used “Special” adjacent to “Public Prosecutor” and the reasons required for such appointment as mentioned therein viz., for the purpose of any case or class of cases, necessarily shows it stands apart. In a given situation and facts and circumstances, as the exigencies may arise, the concerned Government may appoint an individual person as a Special Public Prosecutor at their choice and discretion. This appointment, naturally will be in addition to the regular Public Prosecutors functioning in the respective Courts, and for the reasons as the Government may feel necessary to appoint such Special Public Prosecutors. It is not necessary to dwell into or lay down any specific reasons for such appointment, since they may vary from case to case and facts to facts. Therefore, where it felt necessary, the option is left to the Government for appointing a Special Public Officer in respect of a special case or class of cases. Thus, this provision independently stands on its own and cannot and does not have any similarity with appointments to the offices as provided for in the preceding sub clause. Apparently, the consultation and panel as prescribed for the purpose of District is not provided for. It shows that such procedure is not necessary for making an appointment to the post of Special Public Prosecutor. The discretion apparently is a total and absolute one with a complete option on the part of the State Government to virtually pick and choose. Though the duties of every Public Prosecutor runs on the same lines, but, however the restrictions vary from between these three offices. A person who has been appointed as Special Public Prosecutor for the purpose of any case or class of cases cannot claim as a regular Public Prosecutor, be it High Court or in the District, nor can he be permitted to prosecute the other cases on behalf of the State. Similarly, the built in area of operation gets restricted for all such regular Public Prosecutors in claiming any right to appear on behalf of the State in respect of such case or class of cases where a Special Public Prosecutor gets appointment. Having regard to such clear distinction laid down by the legislatature in its wisdom it has dispensed with the consultation and processing through a panel. Having made into a separate class itself as a Special Public Prosecutor and prescribing its own procedure specifically and, the other procedure in earlier clauses for other offices cannot be applied in toto. The intention of the legislature is quite clear and apparent. Therefore there cannot be any other interpretation of provision otherwise. It is now well established that when the legislature lays down the procedure in contradiction to the various situations, it cannot be said or interpreted to bring down the uniform procedure or bring forth with or apply the procedure applicable to that of the other situations. The exclusion of the consultation cannot be imported. While interpreting a provision in a statute, the expression and contents have to be read in the manner it is contemplated. Neither there is any permissibility of exclusion of the expressions or additions. Applying the criteria in one provision or from one end cannot be ushered in other provision or end. It virtually amounts to a clear legislation by the Courts, which is not permissible. In fact, it deviates the purpose and object under sub clause 8 in appointing a Special Public Prosecutor. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any requirement of consultation or preparation of panel for appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor under sub-clause 8 of Section 24. The argument let on behalf of the petitioners that the power conferred under sub clause 8 is a whimsical and there are no guidelines and therefore such an appointment straightaway without following the procedure for the other offices is bad, cannot be accepted. Primarily there is no challenge as to the vice of the said provision either under the constitutional ground or otherwise by the petitioners. Therefore it is not necessary for this Court to go into the validity of the provision. Further, having regard to the nature of provision and the limited gamut within which the exercise of power has to be done by the Government, it cannot be said that there are no guidelines or any specific power. In the exigencies, it is left open for the Government, in a particular case or class of cases, wherever necessary and expedient to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor other than the regular office holder. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the aforesaid contentions. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in PARAMJIT SINGH SADANA (Supra 1), wherein, this Court while considering the sub clause 8 of section 24 of the Code has held that the provisions of section 24 are to be read as a whole thus the procedure as contemplated under sub section 4 and 5 has to be followed in its letter and spirit for the purpose of exercising the powers under sub section 8 of the said provision. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the learned Single Judge. As against the very same judgment, the State has preferred appeals in W.A Nos 1254 and 1498 of 2008. It was a case where a crime was registered in Crime No. 369 of 2006 on the file of the Police Station Panjagutta under section 302 and 379 IPC at the instance of the defacto complainant. Subsequent to the laying of the charge sheet and committal thereof to the Metropolitan Sessions Court , Hyderabad, on a representation filed by the defacto complainant for appointing a private advocate as Special Public Prosecutor in place of the existing Public Prosecutor to conduct the trial in the said Sessions Case, the Government appointed a Private Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor. Assailing the same, writ petition was filed and the learned single Judge after considering the contentions of both the sides and provisions of section 24 of the Code, proceeded on the basis that merely because sub section 8 in so many terms prescribe the eligibility criteria for appointment of Special Public Prosecutor, it is not permissible to ignore the sub section 4 and 5 while making the appointments under sub section 7 or 8 of section 24 of the Code and therefore it was held that sub section 8 shall not be read in isolation and section 24 needs to be read as a whole, so as to discern what is the criteria for Public Prosecutor and Additional Public Prosecutor as the case may be in respect of the District and what is the criteria for appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor. Later on, the learned Single Judge proceeded to consider the procedural aspect as provided under Sections 4 and 5 in regard to the preparation of panel and the consultation. There is no serious dispute in regard to the interpretation to be given in respect of such procedure as provided for under sub clause 4 and 5 for a consultation and preparation of a panel. The learned single Judge has relied on the decision in SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA[4], STATE OF UTTER PRADESH AND ANOTHER Vs. JOHRI MAL[5], and ASHOK TANWAR AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS[6], wherein the Supreme Court was considering the scope and manner of expression the consultation. It may have relevance to refer or rely on, while considering the earlier sub clauses of 4 and 5 of Section 24 but not for sub clause 8 thereof, whereas such process exist. Considering scope of section 24 of Civil Procedure Code, on question as to competency of transferor State to appoint Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the case in a transfere Court, in JAYENDRA SARASWATI case (cited 2 supra) held as follows; “11.. Section 24 (1) deals with the appointment of Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor for conducting any prosecution, appeal or other proceedings