1 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 381 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 380 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Vs. Chalakkel Lazer Anto .. Respondent Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for applicant-State. Mr. C.L. Anto, Respondent, party-in-person, present. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. April 28, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Mrs. Deshmukh, the learned APP for applicant- State and Mr. C.L. Anto, respondent, party-in-person present. Dr. Ganesh Gopinath Bade, Section Officer, Law and Judiciary Department and Mr. Ravindra Shivaji Gorve, Section Officer, Home Department are present. 2 2. This application has been taken out by the State of Maharashtra, through the Deputy S.P., CID, Konkan Bhavan, Mumbai, for modification of our earlier order dated 1/10/2009 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 380 of 2009. 3. The main ground on the basis of which this application has been made is that Section 28(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 does not provide for the legal practitioner to appear in any case or proceeding before a Juvenile Court or the Board, except with the special permission of the Board. It is, therefore, prayed that the appointment of Mrs. Rohini Salian made by our order dated 1/10/2009 for Case No. 182/J/2002, presently pending before the Juvenile Court at Mumbai, be recalled. 4. We have noted that the case before the Juvenile Court is being tried under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and as amended from time to time and, therefore, the reliance placed on the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 is not tenable. In addition, Rule 27(12) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 states that the Committee shall have an empanelled list of lawyers, social workers and 3 mental health expert who may assist the Committee in dealing with cases of abused children and who may also interface with the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor to facilitate legal services to the abused children, when the cases relating to such children are taken up in regular Criminal Courts. Thus, there is no prohibition of a Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor being called upon to assist the Juvenile Court. Hence, when there is no prohibition for the appearance of the Public Prosecutor/Assistant Public Prosecutor, we do not see any reason to modify our order dated 1/10/2009. 5. However, we make it clear that Case No. 182/J/2002 has already been made time bound by this court and it is for Mrs. Salian to ensure that the said time schedule is maintained. We are informed that 24 witnesses have been examined by now and we also make it clear further that the professional fees of Mrs. Rohini Salian, as Special Public Prosecutor shall be as per the Rules of the State Government and on par with the fees payable to the Public Prosecutor appearing in the court of Metropolitan Magistrates. We direct that the notification for appointing Mrs. Rohini Salian, as a Special Public Prosecutor, in Case No. 182/J/2002 shall be issued by the State Government forthwith. 4 6. Save and except the above directions, this application is rejected. 7. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE,J.)