1 wp.3317-2011 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3317 OF 2011 Deepak Damu Tazanpure ...Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.. ...Respondents. ---- Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar, for the Petitioner. Mr. Ravi Kadam, Advocate General with Mr. A.S. Gadkari, A.P.P. for the State. ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE & M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATE : NOVEMBER 09, 2011. P.C.:- 1 By this petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking writ order and direction for quashing the Notification dated 19.10.2011 which is annexed at Exhibit “E” to the petition whereby the Government was pleased to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor in respect of the case arising out of CR No.780 of 2010. 2. The petitioner is the original accused no.1 in connection with 2 wp.3317-2011 an offence which was registered at the Nasik Road Police Station vide CR No.780 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 452, 427, and 143 of IPC. The accused was arrested in connection with the said offence and later on was released on bail by the Additional Sessions Judge at Nasik. The investigation of the said offence is already over and a chargesheet has been filed and the case is ready for hearing. The Government, by exercising the powers vested in it under Section 24(8) of the Cr. P.C., was pleased to appoint Shri Ujjwal Nikam as a Special Public Prosecutor to appear in the said case. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order and the Notification which has been issued pursuant to the decision taken by the Government dated 19.10.2011. 3. Shri Warunjikar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the said Notification has been issued without following the guidelines which have been framed by the Apex Court in the case of Mukul Dalal Vs. Union of India & Ors. [ 1988 (3) SC-144]. He further submitted that the said Notification is contrary to the Rules which are framed by the Government in respect of Maharashtra Law Officers (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Remuneration) Rules, 1984. It is submitted that the said order of appointment of the Special Public 3 wp.3317-2011 Prosecutor has been made without application of mind. It is further submitted that there was no necessity for the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor particularly when the various authorities had from time to time given their opinion that neither it is necessary nor there was any justification for the appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor. He has invited out attention to the opinion given by the Dy. Director of Prosecution, Dy. Police Commissioner, Crime Branch, and by the Director of Public Prosecution. It was submitted that though the opinion was given by the said three authorities, and the Government had acted on the said decisions, subsequently without any application of mind, the Government had issued the said Notification. He invited our attention to the guidelines which are framed by the Government pursuant to the decision which has been given by the Apex Court in the case of Mukul Dalal Vs. Union of India & Ors.(Supra) He further submitted that in the present case, there was no public interest involved and as such it was not necessary to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor. 4. On the other hand, Shri Kadam, the learned Advocate General submitted that the petitioner did not have any locus standi to challenge the order of appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor since it was made by 4 wp.3317-2011 the Government pursuant to the provisions of Section 24(8) of the Cr.P.C. He further submitted that no prejudice can be caused to the accused by virtue of the said appointment, and therefore, on that ground alone this petition is liable to be rejected. He invited our attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharaashtra & Ors. Vs. Prakash Prahlad Patil & Ors.[ (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 539]. He also invited our attention to the letter which is written by the Commissioner of Police, Nasik City to the Home Minister, State of Maharashtra in which it was stated that it was necessary to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor in public interest. 5. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General, we are of the view that no case is made out for interfering with the decision taken by the Government in appointing the Special Public Prosecutor. 6. The Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Supra), inter alia, has held that no prejudice can be caused to the accused on account of appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor. In view of the decision in the said case, we are of the view that the petitioner has no locus 5 wp.3317-2011 to challenge the Notification issued by the Government of Maharashtra. 7. It is a settled position in law that the decisions which are taken by the quasi judicial authorities by exercising the powers vested in it under the provisions of a statue cannot be interfered with, since it is duty of the court not to interfere with the policies which are taken by the Government. In our view, the ratio of the judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Supra) squarely applies in the facts of the case, and hence there is no substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, the petition is dismissed. 8. At this stage, Mr. Warunjikar, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks continuation of the directions given by the Vacation Judge for staying the trial for reasonable period of time. This request is opposed by the learned Advocate General for the State. He submits that the earlier Bench had directed that trial should be concluded within a period of three months from the date of the said order. 9. In our view, since the directions for expeditious hearing are given by the earlier Bench, it would not be appropriate to this court to 6 wp.3317-2011 modify the said order. Hence, the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected. It is always open for the petitioner to make that request before the trial court. If such a request is made, the trial court may consider such application and decide it in accordance with law. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)