IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH OCTOBER 2011 / 3RD KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 24068 of 2011(G) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P.P.AVARACHAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.P.A.POULOSE, POTHANAMKANDATHIL HOUSE, OORAMANA P.O., KAYANADUKARA, MARADI VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI (VENNELA) RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. 3. SUNNY VARGHESE, CHALUNILATHIL, KAYANADUKARA, OORAMANA P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 661. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R. REMA R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.24068/2011 G APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P2 OFFICIAL LETTER DATED 28.07.2011 SENT BY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.P.GAFFOOR TO DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS S-13-42164/11 PASSED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.(COPY RECEIVED TO THE PETITIONER). EXT.P4 APPLICATION DATED 10.08.11 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MUVATTUPUZHA IN SC NO.354/10. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss N.K. BALAKRISHNAN,J. ------------------------------------ WPC No. 24068 of 2011 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of October, 2011. O R D E R Petitioner is the injured and de facto complainant in Session Case No.354/2010 pending before the Additional Session Judge, Muvattupuzha. The charge sheet in that case was laid against the accused under section 307 IPC. The petitioner contends that the Additional Public Prosecutor who was dealing that Session Case was not prosecuting the matter properly. It was stated that though CW1, the injured was cross-examined for about 4 1/2 hours, no question was put by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in re-examination even though so many questions were to be asked to the witness. From the conduct of the trial of that case, the petitioner apprehended that the learned Prosecutor was not discharging his duty properly. Hence he submitted an application before the District Collector for entrusting the case to another Additional Public Prosecutor. Based on that representation Ext.P3 order was passed by the District Collector on 29/07/2007 as per which Shri. P.G. Manu, WPC No. 24068 of 2011 2 Additional Government Pleader, Ernakulam was directed to conduct the trial before the Session Court mentioned above along with the former Additional Public Prosecutor, Muvattupuzha. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when serious allegations were made against the former Public Prosecutor, the conduct of the trial by Sri. P.G. Manu along with the former Prosecutor will not serve the purpose. Subsequently, a petition (Ext.P4)was filed by the petitioner before the Additional Session Court, Muvattupuzha, where the request was that Sri. P.G. Manu should be given independent charge for the conduct of the prosecution. The allegations raised by the petitioner may be true or may not be true but the petitioner apprehends that he will not get proper trial/proper justice. According to the learned counsel, in the light of the allegation made against the former prosecutor the order passed by the District Collector that Sri. P.G. Manu will conduct the case along with the former Prosecutor, does not stand to rhyme or reason. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit it is a case where the left hand of the petitioner was chopped off and WPC No. 24068 of 2011 3 other deep fatal cut injuries were inflicted on the chest of the petitioner. As such the case has to be handled with serious care and deep concern. The petitioner's counsel is perfectly justified in his submission that the prosecution has to be conducted independently by Sri.P.G. Manu and not along with former Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there would be embarrassment for P.G. Manu to conduct the case before the court at Muvattupuzha where the former Prosecutor is also practicing. The main relief sought for is that the trial in the aforesaid case should be allowed to be conducted by Sri. T.G. Manu without interference from the former Additional Prosecutor. That request is only to be allowed. An alternative prayer is also there in the petition that the above case may be transferred to any of the courts at District Centre at Ernakulam. That request was sought made only to avoid the interference by former Public Prosecutor. I do not think Sri. P.G. Manu, the learned Public Prosecutor will be influenced by anybody in the proper conduct of the trial. If in the course of the trial, the petitioner finds anything suspicious in the conduct of the fair and impartial trial then the WPC No. 24068 of 2011 4 petitioner can move this court again. Therefore, the alternative relief sought for in the petition is not allowed. If the former Public Prosecutor has not already handed over the case to Sri. P.G. Manu it shall be done forth with. The District Collector will ensure the same. In the result this petition is allowed. Sri. P.G. Manu will conduct the case, SC No.351-4/2010 without being interfered with and without the assistance of the former Public Prosecutor. The learned trial Judge will see that the trial is conducted fairly and properly. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE smvd