IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 6TH MAY 2010 / 16TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14439 of 2010(Q) -------------------------- SC.1374/2008 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: --------------- T.R.SREEDHARAN, S/O. RAMAN, AGED 50 YEARS, THAMARAKKATTIL HOUSE, PENGAMUKKU, KATTAKAMBAL VILLAGE, KUNNAMKULAM, TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR SRI.HARIDAS P.NAIR SMT.K.L.SREEKALA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETRY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC OF PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER: SRI B JAYASURYA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.14439 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 06th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to appoint an impartial and competent Special Prosecutor in S.C.No.1374 of 2008 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track-I), Trichur and for other reliefs as stated in the writ petition. The apprehension of petitioner is that his brother was killed allegedly by the accused in Crime No.76 of 2000 of Kunnamkulam Police Station and the case for the offences punishable under section 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 302 r/w 149 of the IPC is coming up for trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge from 07-05-2010 onwards but, the prosecution is being conducted by the Public Prosecutor who owes allegiance to the CPI(M) to which party the accused belonged. That gives an apprehension to the petitioner that there will not be a proper conduct of prosecution of the case and that will affect the administration of justice. 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. W.P.(C).No.14439 of 2010 : 2 : 3. The only ground urged before me is the alleged political allegiance of the Public Prosecutor to the party to which the accused allegedly belonged. There is no case that there is any other intimacy or connection between the accused and the Public Prosecutor concerned. Merely on the allegation that the Public Prosecutor alleged owed alleging to a party to which the accused belonged there can be no genuine or reasonable apprehension for petitioner that the Public Prosecutor concerned would not discharge his responsibilities as such prosecutor. I find no reason to think that Public Prosecutor who is in charge of the conduct of the case will not discharge his responsibilities and duties as a Public Prosecutor in the matter. The court is also not a silent umpire in the trial of the case and it has an active role to be played in the matter. It is open to the court to step in at appropriate stages as circumstances warranted. Petitioner is also without any remedy – he can if circumstances warranted, invoke section 301(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial of the prosecution case, as per the petitioner is to commence on 07-05-2010. At this stage, I do not consider it necessary also considering the nature of the allegations made in the writ petition to interfere and direct change of the Public Prosecutor as per the order of this court which would upset the schedule fixed by the learned Additional Sessions W.P.(C).No.14439 of 2010 : 3 : Judge for trial of the case for which summons must have already been issued and served on the prosecution witnesses. I do not find merit in the writ petition. With the observations made above, the writ petition is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-