AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 292 wordsBechu Kurian Thomas, J
Petitioner is the wife of one C.K.Ramachandran, who is alleged to have been murdered on 12.07.2016, pursuant to which Crime No.1192 of 2016 was registered. After investigation, the case was committed to the Sessions Court where it is pending as S.C.No.571 of 2017.
Petitioner alleges that the murder of her husband is a political murder as he was a BJP worker and the arrested accused are DYFI/ CPM activists. Since petitioner is desirous of having the trial conducted by a Special Public Prosecutor, for reasons specified, an application was filed as Ext.P2 on 15.01.2024 before the first respondent. The said application is still pending consideration and a direction is sought for an expeditious consideration and disposal of the said application.
I have heard Sri.S.Rajeev, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the request for appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor falls clearly within the purview of the circular issued by the Government produced as Ext.P3 and also that the murder apparently falls within the category of a a political murder, appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor is essential.
Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction.
Accordingly, there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 application, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within an outer period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The trial court shall defer the trial until orders as directed above are issued on Ext.P2.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.