^ rpfOQ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH, BILASPUR (C.G.l r/7^- WRIT PETITION (CR.t N0. /2006 ^" PETITIONER ..^^ v\'''a..<^y" <p'(.i.-::^o?r...-'" ^''../.A^-';/-" ..-••"%^"'" «P<!^:\?k1'" ^yy w®'i ..•• y ^ Rajeev Kalia, S/o. Late Sudarshan Kalia, aged about 32 years, R/o Chhote Attar Muda, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT .^ ^State of Chhattisgarh, Through- the Secretary, Department of Law and Legislature, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) y WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT/WRITS, ORDER/ORDERS, OR/AND DIRECTION / DIRECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI. OR OF ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE NATURE. XI-HC-78 an^rgiTfSaN) wys^fsffw / ^Y *11*<dl Sh+<|ch 3^ •^WM'ii, y-rflti'IS, Rlrtltiy< ^^.57f..r. V^ 200^ 311^1 tj^ch (^cii^a^ff) waiw^feT sn^r 2^-.r?^.^( Shri M..P.S. Bhatia, tearl The petitioner has prefe] ordsr dated 11.9.2006 SAmei f .3 which the appoint.ment of 8i!asDur and in his absencife Advocate, Raigarh, as Speci^ petitioner and his mother, to ct Fourth Additional Sessions Ji| been cance.'iea'. Learned counsei for thd the case are eminent criminal powerfu! persons who hoid infi| further submifs that number o| are iikeiv to be examined as d persons and thus, keeping i| app'ications of the petitioner ai| Gurmif Sinflh'Aahiuwaiia. Advg and in his absence Shri I.P. Sh conduct the case via'e order cl ^rafeNtR'wiraf ff fei^ (fSrezrc ^srt^Tsn^r led counsel roi" tne petitioner, rred fhis peti'tion praying for quashi'ng ofthe (ure P-1) passed by respondenyState, by .hri Gurmit Singh Aahluwalia, Advocate, i the appointment of Shri i.P. Sharma, il Public Prosecutor at the request of the 3nduct Sessions Triai 2S/04 in the Court of idge, Raigarh on behaif of the State, has petitioner submlts fhat accussd persons ;n iawyers of Raigarh and as such they are jence over the District Bar Association. He members of the Bar Asso'ciation, Raigarh efence vvitnesses on behaSf of the accused ^ i view tne aoove circumstances, on ?ne id his mother, the State had appointsd Shri ;ate, Bilaspur as Special Public Prosecutoi" larma, Advocate, Raigarh, was appointed to lated 23.6.2006 and the exoenses towards XI-HC-78 u^ t11*1WI sb*1ich TEET '^l'illd'il, »Tl1ti'is,Rioiuy .^.(fC^.^^.. ^ 200$ 3li^i Maw (yl^i^) Sn^T^iTR^icb crar sn^r gitira? STaTWBfiHsn^r qiiitfi'll-i tii*ii-iTiftei^<Ri<^]< ^arf^Tsn^r rsmuneration were to be bornl subseauentlv cancelied vlde d reason. It is aiieaed ihat the 's^fJ of pressure created by the ai the order of Annexure P-1 'sh'l as uer Annexure P-3 shoil Prosecutor to conduct the casl Learned counsel for 1 places reiiance on the judgrr^ ^.f.--«.. 'I Q^ ;?-; -i^in ;^n jfi—/i. r /^,-? ^U, 1^0 tfi LHfc; HlsSLL^I Ul r'H' ^- r ;"ii^ T* ^. s by the petitioner. However, {he same was irder of Annexure P/1 without assianing anv ppointment has 'oeen cancelled on the basls ;cused and in ths aforesaid circumstances, suld be quashed and the counse! appointed |id be allowed to act as Specia! Pubilc ie petitioner in support of his contention ent reported in Cr.C.P. W.P.] 1995, Page ittisgarh Mukti IViorcha Vs. oLM.g, a"d others. He further piace^ or' Bombav High Court i'NagDiJ the matter of Omprakash Ba| > reliance on the judgment of Divislon Bench ir Bench) reported In Cri. L. u. 3105 in teti & Ofhers Vs. State of Maharashtra & wins:i s$. 1 have heard learned ccjunsel for the petitioner. ii^. ^*-^^ fn'--^-/-^ ^? /^lki"i^^': i[l Lfi^ HiQLiyi Ui 'u'^Niai.LSiijigarh iVukti SVtorcha (supra) in paragraph - 8 |)Served that in view of Section 301(2} ofthe |in the proceeding the private counse! can examine or cross-examine th^ 'vitnesses or even address in the manner f the [udgment it has been o :ode it is a settled iaw that laid down in section 301(2) o|I? the Code, and the compiainant in such a t^ XI-HC-78 tlP-ldTSh^TlcS SST'qraTcpT, E?Tf1tl'IS, [s|ctl*iy -^•^W^^-^ 2006 3TI^?riach (yiS^qi^eT) sn^r^iTf^tN; awsn^r giiiN; ?RITW Bfia'sn^r wifcpfrr wtRJYif te^t dSiTarc ^sri^iTsn^r situation mav invite the attenti'l Court to see that iustice does to act undsr sub-section 2 of s| counsel bythe complainantfor So far as grievance of ffl has been passed without assicsl " 1-i ^ .'"li'^ .s, ;• nf 3s ?~i •">.i-^ i r; 'f ry. iSs s'^" Af <~) "Ji'^'e'i Ui ;;i|JpU3i !i..Ei'i-t?i'ii, vi ^ hss been cancelled and the PL •t-A "ft^:.-/^^ ftf^v <-t^.-<. C^.f-.-.n. ; in. O ^^1 •LLf I ^pi'y^d K i.fsy Ot.aLy JFi OScl juncture without expressing an' be the duw of the Courf to see ooen to ths concerned Sessioi ror the pefitionci' at the time •^ S^l.^ ^tL ^,/-^ /^^ ^. y\--r\r^ ^-l^ vvii.nteb^^s? yAssiissnyu uuiiny uis, In of the Court. It wouid be the dutv of the r)ot suffer, and it would be open to the Court fection 301 or to aliow the aDDolntment of a lconduction of n cass. |e petitioner that the order of Annexurs P-1 hipQ 3nv r^sson is coocsmsd, bv this ordsr jpecisi Pubiic Prosscutor datec 28.5.200S |biic Prosecutor, Raigarh has been directed Ti-E'2! h\n O^./nA i-4^?fti'^t/£5i- "a''- fhl' ii'^Uy 1 'st'd'! iM-SJ. ZC'^'J^. i~"fU\'Vi?VS3i i 31 LHIte V opinion, this Court observes that it wouid lihat iusfice does not suffer snd It wouid be )is Judge to consider {he prayer of counsel f trial for Dermission to cross-examine ths With the aforesaid ol dlsDosed of. •fl 'AI O ^ /onsequenuy, M.VV.l-.f sservations, the instant pefition stands 3. 3989/06 and I.A.No. 9431/06 aiso stand dlsDOsed of. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge l<\^ P.T.O. y ^' v\