[2009] 6 S.C.R. 392 ..

-t A

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

PRAKASH PRAHLAD PATIL & ORS.

(Criminal Appeal No. 748 of 2009)

APRIL 16, 2009

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR

GANGULY, JJ.]

).. .

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: c s.24(8) - Appointment of Special Public Prosecutor - Challenged in a writ petition - High Court setting aside the appointment - Held: Appointment of a Public Prosecutor to conduct proceedings does not in any way cause prejudice to

D accused - In that sense, writ petition before High Court was wholly misconsceived - Order of High Court set aside - Trial

-"I court would complete the trial expeditiously - Rules for the Conduct of the Affairs of the Government, 1984 - r.22 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226.

E Constitution of India, 1950:

Article 226 - Writ petition challenging appointment of Special Public Prosecutor - Writ petition purported to be under public interest, but later petitioner turned out to be ¥ •

F relation of one of the accused - High Court allowing the petition - Held: The power of judicial review is not intended to assume a supervisory role - The power is not intended either to review governance under the rule of Jaw nor do the courts step into the areas exclusively reserved by the

G supreme Jex to other organs of the State - Courts should not ordinarily interfere with a policy decision of the State - While ). "- exercising power of judicial review the court is more concerned with the decision making process than the merit of the decision itself - Administrative Law - Policy decision -

H 392

""' _..j

.4' ...

-'of

... -1,

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. v. PRAKASH 393

PRAHLAD PATIL & ORS.

Judicial Review.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 748 of 2009.

From the Judgment & Order dated 04.07.2008 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 234 of 2008.

Sanjay Kharde and Asha Gopalan Nqir for the Appellants.

Nikhil Goel, Sayid Marzook Bafaki, Sheela Goel, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Arundhati S. Sukhtankar and Naresh Kumar for the Respondents.

The Order of the Court was delivered:

ORDER

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court allowing the Writ Petition filed by present respondent No.1. In the Writ Petition before the High Court challenge was to the appointment of the present respondent No.3 as a Special Public Prosecutor for conducting Sessions Case No.41 of 2006 pending before the Sessions Court at lslampur in Sang Ii District. The basic grievance of respondent No.1 was that the appointment of respondent No.3 as a Special Public Prosecutor was in violation of the scheme of Section 24(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "the Code") and Rule 22 of the Rules for the Conduct of the Legal Affairs of Government, 1984 (in short "The Rules"). It was also the stand of respondent No.1 that the view expressed by this Court in Mukul Dalal v. Union of India, 1988 (3) SCC 144, was not kept in view while making the appointment. The appointment of respondent No.3 appears to have been made on the basis of a petition filed by the brother and the son of the victim. This was a case where two persons were killed. Several

SUPREME COURT REPORTS


A accused persons are facing trial. Though initially it was not

disclosed by respondent No.1 that he is related to one of the accused, but later on that fact surfaced during the hearing of the matter before the High Court. Then respondent No.1 took the stand that he was a social worker and in greater public B interest the writ petition was filed. The State opposed the petition on several grounds: primarily indicating that the scope of judicial review of the executive, administrative and quasijudicial action, was extremely limited and this is not a case where any interference was called for. It appers from the C impugned order of the High Court that the original file was

called for and scanned as if the High Court was hearing an appeal against a decision taken. The scope for judicial review has been examined by this court in several cases. It has been consistently held that the power of judicial review is not

0 intended to assume a supervisory role or don the robes of omnipresent. The power i.s not intended either to review governance under the rule of law nor do the courts step into the areas exclusively reserved by the supreme lex to other organs of the State. A mere wrong decision, without anything more, in most of the cases will not be sufficient to attract the power of E judicial review. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred upon a court is limited to see that the authority concerned functions within its limits of its authority and that its decisions do not occasion miscarriage of justice.

3. The courts cannot be called upon to undertake

governmental duties and functions. Courts should not ordinarily interfere with a policy decision of the State. While exercising power of judicial review the court is more concerned with the decision making process than the merit of the decision itself.

4. In the instant case, acting on a petition filed by close relatives of a victim decisions have been taken at various levels. The High Court was not justified to pick up stray sentences from the records to conclude that there was nonapplication of mind. In any event, the appointment of a Special

. )-

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. v. PRAKASH 395

PRAHLAD PATIL & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

1 A 1 Public Prosecutor to conduct a proceeding does not in any way cause prejudice to the accused. In that sense the writ petition before the High Court was wholly misconceived. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. Since the trial appears to have been held up, we direct that the trial court shall make all possible endeavours to see that the trial is completed B expeditiously and in any event not later than by the end of October, 2009. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

5. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.4051 of 2009 also stands disposed of. c

R.P.

Appeal allowed.