IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 1776 OF 2008 Mr Sunil Hanumantrao Koppal ..Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr Niteen Pradhan with Ms S.D. Khot and Ameeta Kutti Krishnan Advocate for Petitioner. Mrs A. S. Pai, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND A.R. JOSHI,JJ. A.R. JOSHI,JJ. A.R. JOSHI,JJ. DATED : 17TH FEBRUARY,2009. DATED : 17TH FEBRUARY,2009. DATED : 17TH FEBRUARY,2009. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. The main issue that is involved in this petition is, whether the State can appoint a public prosecutor at the request, choice and expenses of a complainant. This Court has already decided a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 234 of 2008. In that writ petition, this Court mainly considered the rules governing the appointment of Special Public Prosecutor. This Court lays that in our criminal judicial system the offences are supposed to have been committed against the State and the position of the public proseutor in a criminal trial is of a friend of the court and a friend of justice and if the public proseutor is of the view that case needs to be withdrawn he has even power to seek withdrawal of the prosecution. A public prosecutor is expected to ensure that a guilty is punished and an innocent is acquitted. Whether this plea will continue to govern the criminal trials, if the public prosecutor is of the choice of the complainant if he is being paid by the complainant or not, would be a question which will have to be gone into. 2. At this stage, we feel necessary to mention that the question has not been gone into in Writ Petition No. 234 of 2008. However, the judgment in that case is a subject matter of appeal before the Supreme Court of India and the Supreme Court has already stayed the operation of the judgment in that case. Since the Supreme Court is seized of the matter, the issue which this Court is handling may be handled by the Supreme Court, as well. Therefore, proprietory demands that we should postpone hearing of the matter till the Supreme Court decides the appeal. 3. When this petition was filed, this Court had directed that the Special Public Prosecutor may not conduct the trial but trial can go on and it may be conducted by the Public Prosecutor attached to the Court. This order is later modified by staying the trial till further orders. That order will remain operative. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (BILAL NAZKI,J.) (BILAL NAZKI,J.) (BILAL NAZKI,J.)