Chidipudi Srinivasa Reddy and Others vs The State of A.P.

L. Narasimha Reddy, JJ.—Faced with a strange development in the course of hearing of a batch of Criminal Appeals, we requested the learned Attorney General to assist and advice us. Acceding to the request made by us, the learned Attorney General deputed Sri Wilson, Additional Attorney General of India. He advanced extensive arguments and cited several precedents. We have also heard the arguments of the learned Special Public Prosecutors as well as the learned counsel for the appellants in the Criminal Appeals.

The circumstances that led to the passing of this order are as under:

Large scale disturbances of law and order occurred in Tsundur and other surrounding Villages of Guntur District of Andhra Pradesh, in the year 1989. The situation was so alarming that in addition to the civil police in the Police Station, functioning in that Village, Armed Police was deployed. In the month of August, 1991 as many as 8 persons belonging to Scheduled Caste Community of that Village were killed. This naturally gave rise to commotion and has not only shaken the Government of the day, but also attracted the attention of the National Media and other social organizations.

Steps were taken to identify the culprits. Cases were registered and as many as 219 accused were put to trial, in S.C.No. 36 of 1993. A Special Sessions Court, exclusively for trying that case, was constituted, with its seat, right in the Village. The trial Court had to overcome several hurdles and ultimately, a marathon trial was conducted. Through its judgment dated 31-07-2007, the trial Court convicted 32 accused for committing the offences, punishable under different provisions of law. Sentence of imprisonment for life was awarded to some of them, and others were inflicted punishment of different nature.

Criminal Appeal No. 1023 of 2007 and batch were filed by the accused, who were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court. Some of the prosecution witnesses, on the other hand, filed Criminal Revision not only assailing the acquittal of the rest of the accused, but also seeking enhancement of the punishment for those who were convicted. On its part, the State filed two Criminal Appeals.

For one reason or the other, Criminal Appeals filed by the convicted accused were not taken up for hearing, though the other appeals filed in the year 2008 and 2009 were already disposed of. We started hearing the Criminal Appeals of 2010. One of the convicted accused filed an application for interim bail. At that time, we verified as to why the appeals filed in the year 2007 were not taken up for hearing so far. All the appeals were listed to ascertain the views of the Special Public Prosecutors.

One Sri Chandrasekhar, who was appointed as Special Public Prosecutor for these cases died in 2011, and in his place Sri Bojja Tarakam, learned Senior Counsel and Sri V. Raghunath, learned counsel, were appointed as Special Public Prosecutors in the recent past. Since they wanted time to go through the record,

we adjourned the matter by a week. When the matters were listed thereafter, the learned Special Public Prosecutors brought to our notice, that three more appeals and one revision were filed in the year 2011 by the then Special Public Prosecutor against the acquittal, and the applications for condonation of delay in those matters are still pending. On verification, we found that the delay involved was about 1400 days. Since notice was already ordered by this Court, we found ourselves in a typical situation.

Taking note of the fact that all the acquitted accused figured as parties in Criminal Revision Case, filed by some PWs, we indicated to the learned Special Public Prosecutors that they can put forward their contentions in that very revision, and if necessary, the delay can also be condoned, so that the hearing of the matters is not postponed any further. However, they insisted that in the event of the delay being condoned, the appeals may have to be numbered and once again notices must be served upon all the respondents in such appeals, and till then, the appeals filed by the convicted accused cannot be taken up. We found this objection, to be not satisfactory, since it would result in an indefinite postponement of the hearing of the appeals filed by the convicted persons. Therefore, we passed an order, directing that the application for condonation of delay as well as the appeals filed by the State be separated and the appeals preferred by the convicted accused be listed for hearing.

On matters being so listed, arguments on behalf of the appellants-accused were advanced for about 8 days, in the presence of, and on reporting ready, by the Special Public Prosecutors. Thereafter, the learned Special Public Prosecutors argued their case for two days. On the third day, a representation was made by the Special Public Prosecutors to the effect that they do not have confidence in the Bench, and therefore, the hearing of the appeals be not proceeded with. Shocked to hear such a representation, we asked the reasons. Sri Tarakam, learned Special Public Prosecutor and Senior Counsel, stated that the victims lost confidence in the Bench. We summoned the learned Advocate General and learned Public Prosecutor, and wanted to ascertain the view of the State on the matter.

Learned Advocate General submitted that the request of such a nature cannot be acceded to, and any submission in this behalf, if at all, must be made through a petition. Learned Public Prosecutor expressed the view that a person holding the position of Public Prosecutor is not the mouth piece of the State or the victims of crime, and he happens to be the minister of the Court. Both of them did not approve of the steps taken by the Special Public Prosecutors. The matter was adjourned to the next day, and we directed that whatever the Special Public Prosecutors intend to state in this regard, must be put in writing. On the next day, Sri Tarakam, learned Special Public Prosecutor, filed an affidavit, stating that the victims lost confidence in the Bench. On that day, we passed an order, which reads:

Learned Senior Counsel & Special Public Prosecutor - Sri Bojja Tarakam filed an affidavit, which contains the prayer also. The gist thereof is that after observing the conducting of the proceedings before this Court, the victims feel that they cannot get justice, and therefore they lost confidence in this Bench.

To a specific question as to who are those victims, learned Special Public Prosecutor states that he would ascertain their names. He ultimately made a prayer that the case be posted before any other Bench.

It has already been observed at one stage of the proceedings that the appeals arose out of the Judgment of the Special Judge-cum-IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur, and though the appeals filed by the convicted persons were listed for hearing way back in 2011, they could not be taken up on account of the fact that the Special Public Prosecutor presented as many as ''three'' appeals/revisions, with an application to condone delay of more than 1389 days in three cases and 1400 days in another case. One of the appellants filed an application for grant of bail. On noticing that the appeal itself was ripe for hearing, we ascertained the views of learned Special Public Prosecutor and thereafter listed the appeals for hearing.

At that stage, learned Special Public Prosecutor insisted that the application for condoning the delay must be taken up first, so that the matter is dealt with comprehensively. At one stage, we informed them that a revision filed by some of the Prosecution Witnesses, not only challenging the acquittal but also the adequacy of the sentence imposed, is ready for hearing, and they can put forward their arguments in that revision. That however, did not appeal to them, and when they insisted that unless the application for condoning the delay are taken up, further proceedings cannot be taken up, we passed a detailed order, separating the appeals filed by the convicted accused.

Before the hearing in this appeal is commenced, we verified from the learned Special Public Prosecutor whether they have any objection for this Bench to hear the appeals having regard to such atmosphere in which the trial itself was conducted. It is only on their stating ''no-objection'' about our hearing of the matter, we commenced the hearing. The arguments on behalf of the appellants were addressed for about eight days. Learned Special Public Prosecutor commenced his arguments and addressed the Bench for two days.

However, yesterday at the commencement of the proceedings, learned Special Public Prosecutor made an oral submission to the effect that they have no confidence in this Bench and they do not intend to proceed further with the matter, virtually taken back. On this, we heard learned Advocate General and took note of his observation that any request of this nature can be made through a written application.

Learned Special Public Prosecutor filed an affidavit. The penultimate paragraph of the affidavit reads as under:

I made several submissions to the Court that in the interests of justice all the cases have to be heard together. Even at the time I commenced the arguments, brought to the notice of the Court again and again that those applications have to be considered. In spite of that the Court determined to proceed with the case wherein raised the apprehensions and further manner in which the court conducting the proceedings has made the victims to feel that they may not get justice and therefore they have lost confidence in this bench.

We face a typical situation wherein ''lack of confidence'' is expressed at the advanced stage of proceedings, and for all practical purposes, learned Special Public Prosecutor does not want us to hear the matter. We find, prima facie, that the approach of the learned Special Public Prosecutor does not accord with the spirit of the very noble office of Public Prosecutor.

Way back in 1959 (in Medichetty Ramakistiah and Others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, ) Justice Bhimasankaram speaking for a Bench observed -

A prosecution to use a familiar phrase ought not to be a persecution. The principle that the Public Prosecutor should be scrupulously fair to the accused and present his case with detachment and without evincing any anxiety to secure a conviction, is based upon high policy and as such Courts should be astute to suffer no inroad upon its integrity. Otherwise there will be no guarantee that the trial will be as fair to the accused as a criminal trial ought to be. The State and the Public Prosecutor acting for it are only supposed to be putting all the facts of the case before the court to obtain its decision thereon and not to obtain a conviction by any means fair or foul. Therefore, it is right and proper that courts should be zealous to see that the prosecution of an offender is not handed over completely to a professional gentleman instructed by a private party.

.... .... ....

Before parting with this case, we should like to impress upon all Public Prosecutors that they are the representatives of the State and their office is one of trust and responsibility. That being so, they should do nothing to lower the dignity of the office by effacing themselves or by being content to play second fiddle in the trial of Sessions Cases.

Though acceding to the request of the learned Special Public Prosecutor may not be a serious thing as such, but the consequences that arise out of it are indeed devastating. If a counsel or for that matter a party to a proceeding is conferred with a right to give away to the proceedings by simply stating that he lacks confidence in the Bench, half way through the proceedings, there is no way the sanctity of the judicial proceedings can be ensured.

We therefore request the learned Attorney General of India to assist the Court in this behalf. We observe that if, for any reason, he is unable to appear before this Court, he can depute a Senior Law Officer of the Central Government.

In the affidavit filed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, as it was mentioned that the victims have lost confidence in this Bench, we direct that he shall furnish the list of the victims with whom he interacted and who expressed ''lack of confidence'' in this Bench by the next date of hearing.

We also direct the Chief Secretary, Government of A.P., to make his position in this behalf clear to this Court.

Post on 10.03.2014.

The Chief Secretary addressed letter dated 10-03-2014 to the Advocate General, which reads:

CHIEF SECRETARY

To The Advocate General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

Sir,

Sub : Crl. Appeal No. 1023/2007- Chidipudi Srinivasa Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh - Reg.

Ref: 1. Order in crlA.No. 1023/2007 dt. 4.3.2014.

Lr. No. 214/2014 dt 7.2.2014.

***

Kind attention is invited to the subject and references cited. It is stated that the State Government have not given any instructions to the Special Public Prosecutor to mention that they have no confidence in the bench hearing the above appeal.

Therefore, you are requested to make the position of the State Government clear in this regard before the Hon''ble High Court.

Yours faithfully, (Dr. P.K. Mohanty)

An affidavit, similar to the one, filed by Sri Bojja Tarakam, learned Special Public Prosecutor was filed by one Sri Jacob, stated to be the President of an Association. He too stated that the victims lost confidence in the Court.

Sri Wilson, learned Additional Solicitor General of India (ASG) submitted that the request made by the special Public Prosecutors does not befit the office held by them, and even a counsel representing a party cannot make such a request. He submits that once the proceedings before a Court commence, neither a party nor a counsel, representing them, can express lack of confidence, and if such a course is permitted, the very independence of judiciary would be at stake.

Learned ASG argued that a Public Prosecutor or a Special Public Prosecutor holds a unique position, and he is not an agent, either of the State or any victim in a criminal case. According to him, the Public Prosecutor is a minister of the Court and his function is only to assist the Court in a proper manner and that it is no part of his duty to ensure a particular result, in a criminal case. According to learned ASG, the duties of the Public Prosecutor are so sacrosanct that in a given case, he may have to go to the rescue of the accused also, if the situation warrants, and expressing lack of confidence in a Bench would be totally unbecoming of the person holding the office of the Public Prosecutor, or Special Public Prosecutor. Placing reliance upon several precedents, he submitted that the steps taken by the Special Public Prosecutors, and by the person, who filed the affidavit and petition, on the same lines, constitute Contempt of Court, and under no circumstances, the Court should budge to such patently illegal maneuvers.

When it was sought to be projected by the Special Public Prosecutors that the appeals herein involve the allegations referable to the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and that they have got a special duty to the victims, learned ASG pleaded that law does not recognize any such difference as to the duties based upon the enactment under which, they are appointed, or the courts are constituted, and invariably, the source of appointment for a Public Prosecutor is Section 24 of Cr.P.C. It is also his view that when even a counsel representing a private party is prohibited from resorting to such acts, the question of a Public Prosecutor or Special Public Prosecutor, appointed under whatever provision of law, resorting to such acts, does not arise.

Learned ASG further submits that it is the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India for every citizen to seek speedy justice and such a right is not only at the stage of trial, but also at the stage of appeal, and that the request made by the Special Public Prosecutors amounts to violation of such right, and that the Court can not accede to such requests.

Sri T. Bali Reddy, learned Senior Counsel and other learned counsel appearing for the appellants argued on the same lines, as did the learned ASG.

Learned Special Public Prosecutor, Sri Bojja Tarakam, and Sri V. Raghunath, learned Advocate, reiterated the stand reflected through the affidavit filed by Sri Tarakam. They submit that they have been opposing the taking up of the appeals filed by the convicted accused for hearing, unless all the appeals filed by the State are ready for hearing, and conducting of the case by the Bench has given rise to the apprehension in the victims of the crime and to themselves, about the outcome of the hearing. Another contention advanced by them is that since all the deceased are from SC Community, a duty is cast upon the Public Prosecutors to ensure that justice is done to the victims and it is in that process, that they have objected to the hearing. It is further argued by them that a citizen has a fundamental right to express views about the judgments rendered, and orders passed by a Court, and that the request made by them is in exercise of such right Reliance is placed upon certain judgments.

By any standard, the batch of appeals that is being heard by us, or the Sessions Case, which gave rise to them, have many special features, be it, the circumstances under which as many as 8 deaths have taken place, or 219 persons figured as accused, or that a Special Court was constituted, right in the village, where the deaths occurred, for trial of that case, or the various stages that the case has undergone or that 70 witnesses were examined and voluminous documentary evidence was adduced. The matters landed in High Court in the year 2007, with the filing of appeals by the convicted accused as well as a revision by some of the prosecution witnesses, and two appeals by the State. All these matters were listed for final hearing in the year 2011. It was at that stage, that the then Special Public Prosecutor filed three more appeals and a revision with a delay of about 1400 days, in each. That resulted not only in issuance of notices in those petitions, but also deferring of the appeals, which were already listed for final hearing. The appeals were not touched at all, on one pretext or the other, for the past three years. It was only in the recent past, that they came up before us, for hearing. The manner in which the hearing of the appeals we taken up, has already been indicated.

At a time when 5 to 7 Criminal Appeals are being disposed of on an average, per day, we spent eight full days for hearing the arguments of the appellants, in present batch of appeals, obviously because the record itself is voluminous, spread over four bulk volumes, and the number of deceased and accused is phenomenal. After the arguments on behalf of the appellants was concluded, the learned Special Public Prosecutors commenced their arguments and addressed the Court for two full-working days. On the third day came a strange and shocking request, that the hearing of the appeals be not proceeded with, since themselves and the victims lost confidence in the Bench.

Since the request came from the Special Public Prosecutors, it needs to be seen as to how far does it befits the office held by them. In the process, the basic tenets of the office of the Public Prosecutor need to be understood. As recently as in 2013, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Deepak Aggarwal Vs. Keshav Kaushik and Others, , observed,

Para-77. The Public Prosecutor has a very important role to play in the administration of justice and, particularly, in criminal justice system. Way back on 15-4-1935 in Berger v. United States 28, Sutherland, J., who delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court of United States, said about the United States attorney that he is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all, and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. The twofold aim of the United States attorney is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.

Para-81. In India, the role of Public Prosecutor is no different. He has at all times to ensure that an accused is tried fairly. He should consider the views, legitimate interests and possible concern of witnesses and victims. He is supposed to refuse to use evidence reasonably believed to have been obtained through recourse to unlawful methods. His acts should always serve and protect the public interest. The State being a prosecutor, the Public Prosecutor carries a primary position. He is not a mouthpiece of the investigating agency. In Chapter II of the BCI Rules, it is stated that an advocate appearing for the prosecution of a criminal trial shall so conduct the prosecution that it does not lead to conviction of the innocent; he should scrupulously avoid suppression of material capable of establishing the innocence of the accused.

Reference was made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Vs. Hukam Chand and Another, , wherein it was held,

Para- 13. From the scheme of the Code the legislative intention is manifestly clear that prosecution in a Sessions Court cannot be conducted by anyone other than the Public Prosecutor. The legislature reminds the State that the policy must strictly conform to fairness in the trial of an accused in a Sessions Court. A Public Prosecutor is not expected to show a thirst to reach the case in the conviction of the accused somehow or the other irrespective of the true facts involved in the case. The expected attitude of the Public Prosecutor while conducting prosecution must be couched in fairness not only to the court and to the investigating agencies but to the accused as well. If an accused is entitled to any legitimate benefit during trial the Public Prosecutor should not scuttle/conceal it. On the contrary, it is the duty of the Public Prosecutor to winch it to the fore and make it available to the accused. Even if the defence counsel overlooked it, the Public Prosecutor has the added responsibility to bring it to the notice of the court if it comes to his knowledge. A private counsel, if allowed a free hand to conduct prosecution would focus on bringing the case to conviction even if it is not a fit case to be so convicted. That is the reason why Parliament applied a bridle on him and subjected his role strictly to the instructions given by the Public Prosecutor.

We have already referred to the judgment of this Court,

in Medichetty Ramakistiah and Others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, .

In Devineni Seshagiri Rao Vs. The Govt. of A.P. and Others, one of us (L. Narasimha Reddy, J.) held,

One of the important sovereign functions of the State is to prosecute the offenders and violators of law. This is an inevitable attribute of sovereign functions. Under no form of Government, prosecution is permitted to be conducted by an agency, other than the State. In the entire Criminal Justice System, as framed under the Code and other ancillary Enactments, the Public Prosecutor is assigned a pivotal role. In a way, it can be said that he is conferred the status of the Master of the Prosecution. Section 225 of the Code confers the prerogative of conducting the prosecution upon the Public Prosecutor. In the matter of withdrawal of prosecution, his opinion becomes important. u/s 301 of the Code, he is conferred the primacy in cases where private persons instruct their respective pleaders to prosecute any person, in the Court. Such pleaders are required to act only under the directions of the Public Prosecutor or the Assistant Public Prosecutor as the case may be. Section 302 of the Code emphasizes the primacy accorded to the Public Prosecutor even in the matter of grant of permission by the Magistrate, to any person other than the Police Officer to conduct the prosecution. Sections 306 and 307 of the Code confer the power upon the trial Courts to tender pardon to an accomplice, with a view to obtain evidence in the case. However, on a Certification by the Public Prosecutor to the effect that the tender of pardon was vitiated by any factors, such as, concealment of essential facts or giving of false evidence, the tender becomes almost inoperative and the accomplice is liable to be tried for the offence. This is contemplated u/s 308 of the Code. u/s 377, the opinion of the Public Prosecutor becomes vital for the purpose of preferring appeals by the State.

So far as the method and manner of functioning of the Public Prosecutor is concerned, it is a settled position that he is not expected to take sides or to act as an Agent of the State. His duty is to assist the Court in arriving at an appropriate conclusion. He is not expected to secure convictions at any cost. The role of a Public Prosecutor was aptly described by Lord Blackburn, J., in R. v. Berens, (1865) 4 F & F 842 (at 852), way back in 1865 to the effect that the prosecuting counsel occupies a kind of judicial position. He is to conduct the cases at his discretion, but with a feeling of responsibility. It was observed that though it may appear that the Prosecutor tries to obtain a verdict, what in fact he does is only to assist the Court in fairly putting the case and nothing more. The Public Prosecutor was treated as part of the Court and was required to act in a quasi-judicial capacity. Several jurists have expressed their views about the nature of functions to be discharged by Public Prosecutor, which are almost similar in substance.

An argument is advanced on behalf of the Special Prosecutors that the G.O., under which, they have been appointed, does not refer to Section 24 of Cr.P.C., and that they stand on a different footing. One is yet to hear an argument, that a Public Prosecutor or a Special Public Prosecutor can be appointed otherwise than u/s 24 of Cr.P.C., whatever be the duties assigned to them. Even if they are to function in special Courts, constituted under the special enactments, the appointment of a Public Prosecutor is only under that provision. If the appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor is not u/s 24(5) of Cr.P.C., their very legal standing comes under cloud. Curiously enough, it is they, who are inviting such a situation.

The question as to whether it is competent for a party or an Advocate to object to the hearing of the proceedings by expressing want of confidence or by citing other reasons is no longer res integra. Direct precedents on this are galore. To mention a few:

In M.Y. Shareef and Another Vs. The Hon''ble Judges of The High Court of Nagpur and Others, ,

the Supreme Court held,

When Counsel signed applications or pleadings containing matter scandalizing the Court without reasonably satisfying themselves about the prima facie existence of adequate grounds therefor, with a view to prevent or delay the course of justice, are themselves guilty of contempt of Court and that it is no duty of a Counsel to his client to take any interest in such applications; on the other hand, his duty is to advise his client for refraining from making allegations of this nature in such applications.

In M.B. Sanghi, Adv. Vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others, , the Supreme Court observed,

The tendency of malging the reputation of judicial officers by disgruntled elements who fail to secure the desired order is ever on the increase and it is high time it is nipped in the bud. And, when a member of the profession resorts to such cheap gimmicks with a view to browbeating the Judge into submission, it is all the more painful. When there is a deliberate attempt to scandalise which would shake the confidence of the litigant public in the system the damage caused is not only to the reputation of the Judge concerned but also to the fair name of the judiciary.

Such cases raise larger issues touching the independence of not only the Judge concerned but the entire institution. ......... It is high time that we realise that much cherished judicial independence has to be protected not only from the executive or the legislature but also from those who are an integral part of the system.

The judgment of the Karnataka High Court in International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Bhima Dasa, Gopal Krishna Goswami and Jaya Pataka Swamy Vs. International Society for Krishna Consciousness and Others, , is in fact, a research document on the subject. Indian and foreign precedents were referred to, and analysed compressively, and held that such practices of forum shopping or denigration of the Bench must be dealt with iron hand.

A person accused of an offence is conferred with a right to seek speedy justice. Through a catena of decisions, the Supreme Court traced the origin of such right to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was held that right to speedy justice would not only take in its fold, at the stage of trial, but also at all subsequent stages. In Abdul Rehman Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak and another etc. etc., , the Supreme Court held,

Para-86:...In view of the above discussion, the following propositions emerge, meant to serve as guidelines. We must forewarn that these propositions are not exhaustive. It is difficult to foresee all situations. Nor is it possible to lay down any hard and fast rules. These propositions are:

(1) Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. Right to speedy trial is the right of the accused. The fact that a speedy trial is also in public interest or that it serves the social interest also, does not make it any the less the right of the accused. It is in the interest of all concerned that the guilt or innocence of the accused is determined as quickly as possible in the circumstances.

(2) Right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and re-trial. That is how, this Court has understood this right and there is no reason to take a restricted view.

The same was cited with approval in Moti Lal Saraf Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Another, Their Lordships held,

Para-46. The concept of speedy trial is read into Article 21 as an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed and preserved under our Constitution. The right to speedy trial begins with the actual restraint imposed by arrest and consequent incarceration and continues at all stages, namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision so that any possible prejudice that may result from impermissible and avoidable delay from the time of the commission of the offence till it consummates into a finality, can be averted.

If there exists any sacrosanct in the process of adjudication by a Court of law, it is on account of the independence conceded to it, by the law of the land. Independence, not only from the state but also from any quarter whatever. One of the important facets of the independence of judiciary is, to enable a Court to proceed with the hearing of the matter, within its jurisdiction, once it is placed before it. On completion of the hearing, the Court renders a judgment, based upon its understanding of the facts and law. It is always open to a party, who is not satisfied with the judgment, to challenge the correctness thereof before a superior forum. The freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under the Constitution of India enables, even a person other than a party to the litigation, to express his views upon the judgment, to the level of criticism also, as long as it is not motivated, or aimed at scandalizing the Court.

However, even with the best of intentions or in the most polite language also, a party or his counsel cannot object to the hearing of the matter, once the proceedings have commenced. It clearly amounts to obstruction of the course of justice. It is a different matter that if a party has knowledge of any factors, which warrant that the matter be not heard by a Bench, such as that the Presiding Officer has dealt with the matter on earlier stage, either as an advocate or while presiding over an inferior forum, or that any of the parties are acquainted with the Presiding Officer, the same can certainly be brought to the notice of the Court, but the matter must be left at that. If the party wants the proceedings be heard by another Court or Bench, for any valid reason, an application, under the relevant provisions of law, can be instituted before a superior forum for transfer of such proceedings, duly pleading the grounds therefor. The party or an advocate, can not insist that the proceedings before Court must not be heard, when it become otherwise due.

The importance which, the High Court gives to the civil liberties of citizens is phenomenal. A sample of this can be discerned from the following:

a) Writs of Habeas Corpus are taken up on high priority basis and they are disposed of within days and weeks, even when civil appeals in which huge Court fees are paid, are awaiting hearing for decades together.

b) Filing of criminal appeals is simplified, whereas, civil matters are subjected to strict scrutiny.

c) Nearly half of the Criminal Appeals and revisions are filed through legal aid arranged by the High Court and no person is denied the remedy on account of his poverty.

d) The High Court takes the responsibility of preparing the record, and supplying the same to the accused, free of cost, whereas no such facility exists for civil matters.

e) Even house motions, i.e., taking up of proceedings out of office hours, are readily permitted in matters involving personal freedom of a citizen, whether he is branded as terrorist, or extremist, or bootlegger, or the like.

Many such aspects can be added to the list.

Reverting to the facts of the case, the reason stated in the instant case by the learned Special Public Prosecutor in his affidavit is as under:

Para -9: I made several submissions to the court that in the interests of justice all the cases have to be heard together. Even at the time I commenced the arguments, brought to the notice of the court again and again that those applications have to be considered. In spite of that the court determined to proceed with the case wherein raised the apprehensions and further the manner in which the court conducting the proceedings has made the victims to feel that they may not get justice and therefore they have lost confidence in this bench.

Sri Jalladi Moses, who claims to be the President of Tsundur Dallita Badhitula Porata Committee, stated in his affidavit as under:

Para-8: I respectfully submit that when the appeals were listed before the Hon''ble Bench for hearing, our counsel requested the court that all the appeals are subject matter of same transaction of crime and as such all of them have to be heard together. The court rejected our repeated request and proceeded with the case. This Hon''ble court however separated the appeals and insisted on hearing the conviction appeals alone. The separation of appeals under SC ST (POA) Act, 1989 goes to the very root of the Special Enactment and prejudice the victims. This caused great pain in us and we feel that the very purpose of the struggle from the beginning and the purpose of special enactment will be defeated and no justice will be done to us resulting in miscarriage of justice. The very conducting of appeals by this Hon''ble Court also caused apprehensions in our minds that the Hon''ble Court is not considering the interests of the victims but only looking after the interests of the accused. Further during arguments when our counsel expressed that victims lost confidence in the court, this Hon''ble Court directed the Special Public Prosecutor to file an affidavit to that affect. This Hon''ble Court wanted the names of those who informed the counsel that they have lost confidence in the court. This affidavit is filed on behalf of all the victims through the President of the victims struggle committee.

It has already been mentioned that arguments went on for about 10 working days. It is on the 11th working day, that the objection is raised. Their contention amounts to giving a suggestion to the effect that the Court must get a certificate either express or implied not only from the counsel appearing before it, and the parties to the litigation, but also the on-lookers, that the way it conducted the proceedings is to their satisfaction. If the hearing is spread over many days, the certification must be at the end of each day of hearing. Once any of them feel that the Court did not conduct the proceedings to their satisfaction, it must desist from the hearing of the matter and introspect itself as to how it failed to gain the confidence of not only the stakeholders in the litigation, but also the outsiders and on-lookers.

We do not hesitate to observe that if a Court or a Judge accede to such requests, or budges under such threats, they will be scripting the obituary of the judiciary and the persons associated with legal profession, be it a Public Prosecutor or a counsel representing the private parties would be committing homicide of the very institution in which they flourished.

Words are not adequate to describe the conduct of such persons, who are prepared to go to any extent to satisfy their selfish interests or their clients. If one takes into account, the concern expressed by the Apex Court while dealing with situations of this nature, and the ratio laid down in the precedents, the inescapable conclusion is that the request made by the Special Public Prosecutors is not only unacceptable, but also is outrageous. Acceding to the request of this nature would only encourage irresponsible counsel or overreaching parties, to promote forum shopping of highest order. Once they know that such facility exists, they may not hesitate to denigrate and destroy judiciary, if it advances their interest or causes harm to their opponents. Unfortunately, it is these persons, who approach the Courts, when they are in trouble. A close analysis of the events in this cases discloses that the only objective of the so-called victims, or the Special Public Prosecutors, is to ensure that the appeals of the convicted accused are not heard. There cannot be worse form of disservice than this, to the office of Public Prosecutor. Their predecessor was successful in presenting the hearing of the appeals, till he passed away. The present Special Public Prosecutors appear to be under pressure, to continue that legacy. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Indirect Tax Practitioners Association Vs. R.K. Jain, is of absolutely of no help to the learned Special Public Prosecutors. The said judgment dealt with freedom of speech and expression, and nowhere it was pointed out that a citizen has freedom to obstruct the proceedings before a Court.

We take serious exception to the manner in which, the Special Public Prosecutors have made the request. They brought disrepute to the noble office of Public Prosecutor, by permitting them to be approachable by the so-called victims, and placing the views of such persons above, their legal and professional ethics and majesty of the Court.

The victim, who filed the affidavit, is neither a complainant, nor did he mention that he figured as a witness in the list of 70 Prosecution witnesses. He appears to be a busy body, interested in prolonging the pendency of the proceedings in relation to the unfortunate incident. He did not hesitate to scuttle the process of law, may be because he received encouragement for such activities on earlier occasion. All the three have, prima facie, obstructed the process of law and functioning of the Court.

We, therefore,

a) reject the request made by the Special Public Prosecutors not to hear the Criminal Appeal No. 1023 of 2007 and batch;

b) direct the Registry to issue show cause notice, returnable in three weeks, to both the Special Public Prosecutors, i.e. Sri Bojja Tarakam, and Sri V. Raghunath, and also Sri Jalladi Moses, President of Tsundur Dallita Badhitula Porata Committee, requiring them to explain as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act be not initiated against them;

c) direct that the hearing of the appeals would be resumed from Monday, i.e. 24-03-2014, and under no circumstances, the cases would be adjourned; and

d) in case the learned Special Public Prosecutors, i.e. Sri Bojja Tarakam, and Sri V. Raghunath are not inclined, or refuse to proceed with the matter, the learned Public Prosecutor of the High Court, shall assist the Court by addressing arguments, by himself, or through any Additional Public Prosecutor.

Before parting with the matter, we place on record, our appreciation for prompt response by the Attorney General and the dispassionate assistance by Sri Wilson, Additional Solicitor General.