Ramaswamy vs Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

P.D. Dinakaran, J.—The Petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in G.O. No. (4-

D) 58, Home Department, dated 13.10.1997 appointing the fourth respondent as Special Public Prosecutor, to quash the same and to direct the

first and second respondents to appoint any other person in the place of fourth respondent to conduct and prosecute the case in S.C. No. 183 of

1995 on the file of the learned Additional and District Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore.

By GO. (4D) No. 58, Home (Courts. VI) Department dated 13.10.1997, which is impugned in the above writ petition, the Government, by

exercising powers u/s 24(8), Cr.P.C, appointed the fourth respondent as Special Public Prosecutor, to conduct the trial of the case in CB CID

Crime No. 5 of 1994 in S.C. No. 183 of 1995 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore, under the

following alleged facts and circumstances of the case.

It is alleged that a daily wage agricultural labourer one Rajakannu the husband of the fifth respondent, was taken into custody by the Police on

21.3.1993 in connection with an offence of house breaking, which was said to have taken place on 18.3.1993 and registered as Crime No. 107 of

1993 on 19.3.1993, on the file of Kammapuram Police Station, Vridhachalam Taluk. South Arcot District. Thereafter, a man missing case was

registered on 22.3.1993, on the file of the very same Police Station in Crime No. 114 of 1993, stating that the said Rajakannu was missing.

In this connection, it is relevant to mention that the fifth respondent, on an earlier occasion, moved this Court in HCP No. 711 of 1993, seeking

for a writ of habeas corpus, for the production of the body of Rajakannu and for compensation as a consequence of the alleged detention, injuries

and disappearance of Rajakannu at the hands of the respondents therein, namely. Superintendent of Police. South Arcot District, Cuddalore,

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vridhachalam, South Arcot District and Sub Inspector of Police. Kammapuram Police Station, Vridhachalam

taluk. South Arcot District.

In the said HCP No. 71 of 1993 a Division Bench of this Court, on the assurance given by the learned Advocate General that there would be

an impartial investigation into the matter by an agency of the State Government, directed for an impartial investigation into the matter. Accordingly,

the Police in Crime Branch of CID registered Crime No. 5 of 1994 and Thiru B. Perumalswamy, an officer belonging to the Indian Police Service,

who was holding the office of the Inspector General of Police, CB-CID, took up the investigation, recorded and got recorded the statements of

witnesses for the prosecution u/s 161, Cr.P.C. and collected and also got collected such other materials which he thought that were relevant for the

prosecution.

During the investigation, it was found that a case was registered in Crime No. 167 of 1993 on the file of Meensurutty Police Station in

Tiruchirapalli District, about 40 kilometers away from Kammapuram Police Station, at the instance of the complaint given by one Natarajan,

Village Assistant that he found a dead body near Guruvalapparkoil, where there was no house. The photographs of the dead body involved in

Crime No. 167 of 1993 were available in the investigation and it was identified and confirmed that the photographs were that of Rajakannu. The

identification of the dead body, cause of death as per the post mortem certificate of the dead body in Crime No. 167 of 1993 and other

circumstances together were submitted before the Division Bench, which disclose that the dead body found in Crime no. 167 of 1993 is that of

Rajakannu and further identified the place of occurrence and the offenders.

This Court, by order dated 1.8.1994 in HCP No. 711 of 1993 recorded the report of Mr. B. Perumalsamy, IPS, that the case registered in

Crime No. 5 of 1994 would be tried in a competent Court of law. Accordingly, the CB-CID filed charge sheet in Crime No. 5 of 1994 and the

case was taken up on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore in S.C. No. 183 of 1995 and later on, the same

was split up into, namely S.C. No. 183 of 1995 against A1 to A3 and S.C. No. 150 of 1997 against A4 to A6.

The Government, after carefully examining the serious nature of the case and the experience of the fourth respondent, appointed fourth

respondent as Special Public Prosecutor, by the impugned G.O. dated 13.10.1997, by exercising powers conferred u/s 24 (8), Cr.P.C. Hence,

the above writ petition.

9.. Mr. Ashokan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, in the light of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, contends that the petitioner

had an occasion to consult the fourth respondent and had a detailed discussion with him with regard to the defence to be taken by the petitioner in

the said case, viz. S.C. No. 183 of 1995 and hence, the appointment of fourth respondent as Special Public Prosecutor would seriously jeopardise

the petitioner''s defence. In this connection, learned senior counsel also refers to the representation of the 5th respondent dated 26.9.1997,

wherein the fifth respondent, while requesting the Government to appoint fourth respondent as Special Public Prosecutor, had stated that the fourth

respondent is aware of the case in S.C. No. 183 of 1995, referred to above, from the beginning.

Placing reliance on the decision in Rajendra Nigam Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, . Mr. Ashokan, learned senior counsel,

contends that in view of the discussion said to have taken place between the petitioner and the fourth respondent and the consultation availed by

the petitioner from the fourth respondent, for the defence to be taken by the petitioner in S.C. No. 183 of 1995, the appointment of fourth

respondent as Special Public Prosecutor in S.C. No. 183 of 1995, could not be justified, as the justice should not only be done, but it should also

appear to be done. He further contends that the appointment of the fourth respondent as Special Public Prosecutor would certainly lead to an

apprehension in the mind of the petitioner as the fourth respondent is aware of the case in S.C. No. 183 of 1995, from the beginning and also had

discussed and advised the petitioner with regard to his defence.

Mr. Ashokan learned senior counsel for the petitioner, invited my attention to the representation of the fifth respondent dated 26.9.1997

wherein the fifth respondent had requested the Government to appoint the fourth respondent as Special Public Prosecutor in S.C. No. 183 of

1995 as the petitioner had proposed to engage an experienced lawyer for his defence. In this Connection, he places reliance on the decision in

Abdul Khader Musliar Vs. Government of Kerala and Others, contends that engaging a leading lawyer for defence cannot be considered as a

special circumstance or a ground for appointing a Special Public Prosecutor, invoking Section 24(8). Cr.P.C.

Mr. Ashokan learned senior counsel, also brought to my notice the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, namely W.P. No. 17524 of 1997

against the respondents, which was withdrawn on 21.11.1997. The order dated 21.11.1997 in W.P. No. 17524 of 1997 reads as follows:

Mr. Natarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submitted his arguments, ultimately represented that the writ petition may be dismissed as

withdrawn and also made an endorsement. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, WMP No. 27698 of

1997 is also dismissed.

Referring to the above order, learned senior counsel contends that since the petitioner has now raised new grounds in the present writ petition, the

same is maintainable in law.

Mr. M. Sunder, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, invited my attention to the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent,

wherein it is stated as follows:

I most respectfully submit that I do not know the Petitioner in the above writ petition. I have never met him and he has never consulted me in

connection with S.C. No. 183/95 or regarding any other case or matter. I have not discussed the defence in the above case with the petitioner or

any other accused in that case and I have never advised them . The averments made by the petitioner and the grounds raised on this score are

specious, false and vexatious.

I humbly submit that I am an advocate practising in Cuddalore District exclusively on the criminal side for the past 35 years. I have been

practising my profession strictly according to the rides and the ethics of the profession. The petitioner has made false allegations, regarding me, for

the reasons best known to him.

(emphasis supplied).

Mr. Patti B. Jagannathan learned Spl. Govt. Pleader, appearing for respondents 1 to 3, explaining the alleged facts and circumstances of the

case in S.C. No. 183 of 1995 and the reasons for appointing the fourth respondent as Special Public Prosecutor in the said case, contends that the

Government have power to appoint Special Public Prosecutor, particularly when the fourth respondent has independently sworn to an affidavit to

the effect that the petitioner had not consulted with the fourth respondent nor discussed about the defence to be taken by the petitioner in the said

case, viz. S.C. No. 183 of 1995 and therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned G.O. dated 13.10.1997.

Placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Avinash Nagar v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti etc reported in 1997 (5) Supreme 306,

learned Spl. Govt. Pleader contends that the petitioner, having filed W.P. No. 17524 of 1997 and withdrawn the same without permission of the

Court with a liberty to file a fresh writ petition, is not entitled to maintain the above writ petition.

Similarly Mr. K. Chandra, learned senior counsel appearing for the fifth respondent, also raised a preliminary objection, contending that the

petitioner is not entitled to maintain the above writ petition as the petitioner had withdrawn the earlier writ petition, namely W.P. No. 17524 of

1997, without liberty to file a fresh writ petition, on the same cause of action. In this regard, he places reliance on the decision in M/s. Upadhyay

and Company v. State of U.P. reported in 1999 (1) MLJR 100.

Mr. K. Chandru learned senior counsel effectively contends that the fourth respondent was appointed as Special Public Prosecutor not merely

because the petitioner had engaged an experienced senior counsel for his defence, but the facts and circumstances of the case and the grievance of

the victim require the appointment of fourth respondent as Special Public Prosecutor in S.C. No. 183 of 1995. The mere statement of the fifth

respondent in her representation dated 26.9.1997 addressed to the Government that the fourth respondent is aware of the case from the beginning,

could not, in any way be construed that the petitioner had discussed and consulted about his defence to be taken in S.C. No. 183 of 1995, with

the fourth respondent.

Mr. K. Chandru, learned senior counsel, placing reliance on the decision in R. Balakrishna Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and Others, contends that

assuming the petitioner had some acquaintance with the fourth respondent, such acquaintance itself would not render the appointment of the fourth

respondent as Special Public Prosecutor illegal nor the petitioner could allege that the appointment of the fourth respondent as Special Public

Prosecutor, would prejudice the defence of the petitioner, in view of the specific denial of the fourth respondent, referred to above.

Mr. K. Chandru, learned senior counsel, further contends that in view of the specific denial of the fourth respondent that the petitioner never

consulted with the fourth respondent in connection with S.C. No. 183 of 1995 nor the fourth respondent had advised or discussed with the

petitioner, with regard to the defence to be taken by the petitioner, the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner would be prejudiced by the

appointment of the fourth respondent has to be rejected.

Mr. K. Chandru, learned senior counsel, also contends that in the instance case, fifth respondent, being a victim in the hands of the petitioner,

has got every right to make representation to the Government to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor, preferably fourth respondent. But it is not for

the petitioner to comment upon such appointment of the fourth respondent as a Special Public Prosecutor. In this regard, learned senior counsel

relies upon the decision in Mohammed Asif Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, wherein this Court has held as follows:

The learned counsel then- argued that if the prosecution is conducted by more than one Prosecutor, that would be prejudicial to the accused and it

would also lead to a chaos in the trial. How the prosecution should be conducted could be left to the prosecution itself. It is not for the accused to

comment upon that so long as the conduct of the prosecution is fair and within the four comers of km and does not spell any prejudice for the

accused. The learned counsel was not able to show in what manner the prejudice would be caused to the accused if the prosecution is conducted

by more than one Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel expressed his apprehension that the defence side would be cowed down by the large

number of prosecuting counsel. I do not agree. There is no question of the defence side being cowed down or being browbeaten merely because

the number of Special Public Prosecutors are more. One cannot ignore the fact that a trial is not ""free for all affair. There is always a Presiding

Officer who is duty bound to control the proceedings. Such eventuality appears to be only imaginary and has no factual basis at least till today. If

that eventuality happens, it would be for the accused to take appropriate steps in law.

(emphasis supplied)

Mr. K. Chandru, learned senior counsel also contends that Section 301(2), Cr.P.C. which enables the fifth respondent to instruct a pleader to

assist the Public Prosecutor in S.C. No. 183 of 1995, cannot be substituted to the powers of the Government to engage the fourth respondent as

Special Public Prosecutor, u/s 24(8), Cr.P.C.

I have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides.

In the light of the above contentions of either parties following issues arise for my consideration.

Issue No. 1:

Whether the petitioner is entitled to maintain the above writ petition, inspite of dismissal of W.P. No. 17524 of 1997 as withdrawn, by this Court?

Issue No. 2:

Whether the right conferred on any private person to instruct a pleader to prosecute any person in any Court, as provided u/s 301(2), Cr.P.C,

could, in any way, whittle down the powers of the Government to appoint Special Public Prosecutor u/s 24(8), Cr.P.C?

Issue No. 3:

Whether the appointment of the fourth respondent as Special Public Prosecutor in S.C. No. 183 of 1995 would prejudice the defence of the

petitioner and the same is irregular, illegal and unreasonable?

Issue No. 1: Whether the petitioner is entitled to maintain the above writ petition, inspite of dismissal of W.P. No. 17524 of 1997 as

withdrawn, by this Court?

In Avinash Nagar v. Navodaya Vidy-alaya Santiti etc. reported in 1997 (5) Supreme 306, the Apex Court has held as follows:

The High Court also was right in its conclusion that the second writ petition is not maintainable as the principle of constructive resjudicata

would apply. He filed the writ petition in first instance but withdrew the same without permission of the Court with liberty to file the second writ

petition which was dismissed. Therefore, the second writ petition is not maintainable as held by the High Court in applying the correct principle of

law. Thus considered we find no merit in the appeal for interference.

Similarly, in the decision in M/s. Upadhyay and Company v. State of U.P. reported in 1999 (1) MLJR 100 the Apex Court has held as

follows:

It is not a permissible practice to challenge the same order once again after withdrawing the SLP without obtaining permission of the court for

withdrawing it with liberty to prove for special leave again subsequently.

Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 17524 of 1997 for the very same relief and later withdrawn the same without the

permission of the Court to file a fresh writ petition on the very same cause of action. Applying the ratio laid in the decisions in Avinash Nagar v.

Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti etc reported in 1997 (5) Supr. 306 and in M/s. Vpadhyay a and Company v. State of U.P. reported in 1999 (1)

MLJR 100, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to maintain the above writ petition, even by raising new grounds, which

were not raised in the earlier writ petition, namely W.P. No. 17524 of 1999, as it would be attracted by constructive resjudicata. Issue no. 1 is

answered in negative.

Issue No. 2: Whether the right conferred on any private person to instruct a pleader to prosecute any person in any Court, as provided u/s

301(2), Cr.P.C, could, in any way, whittle down the powers of the Government to appoint Special Public Prosecutor u/s 24(8), Cr.P.C.?

In this regard, I am obliged to refer Sections 24(8) and 301, Cr.P.C, which reads as follows:

Section 24 (8): - The Central Government or the State Government may appoint, for the purposes of any case or class of cases, a person who has

been in practice as an advocate for not less than ten years as Special Public Prosecutor.

Section 301:

Appearance by Public Prosecutors:

(1) The Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may appear and plead without any written authority before any Court

in which that case is under inquiry, trial or appeal.

(2) If any such case any private person instructs a pleader to prosecute any person in any Court, the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public

Prosecutor in charge of the case shall conduct the prosecution, and the pleader so instructed shall act therein under the directions of the Public

Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor, and may, with the permission of the Court, submit written arguments, after the evidence is closed in the

case.

A reading of the above sections makes it clear that the power of the State Government to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor, invoking

Section 24(8), Cr.P.C. is independent and absolute, of course, depends upon the necessity as well as the facts and circumstances of the case. But

the powers conferred on the pleader, who is instructed by any private person to prosecute the case u/s 24(8) Cr.P.C. are limited, as the same is

subject to the directions of the Public Prosecutor and the permission of the Court and the same could be exercised by the pleader, by submitting a

written argument, only after the evidence is closed in the case. Therefore, it is clear that the pleader instructed by any private person, to prosecute

a case u/s 301(2), Cr.P.C. is not entitled to examine the witness and to conduct the trial. Hence, the right conferred on any private person to

instruct a pleader, as provided u/s 301(2), Cr.P.C. cannot, in any way either equated to or whittle down the powers of the State Government to

appoint Special Public Prosecutor, invoking Section 24(8). Cr.P.C. Therefore, there is no bar for the victim to approach the State Government for

the appointment of Special Public Prosecutor nor there could be any reasonable objection against the exercise of powers of the State Government

provided u/s 24(8), Cr.P.C. to appoint Special Public Prosecutor for an effective conduct of the trial.

Of course, a supplementary issue namely, whether the fifth respondent has got right to approach the State Government to seek for an

appointment of Special Public Prosecutor, arise for my consideration.

In this regard, I am obliged to refer to observations of Dr. A.S. Anand, J. as he then was, in his lecture ""Victims of Crime - The Unseen Side"",

which reads as follows:

Victims are unfortunately forgotten people in the criminal justice delivery system.

A victim of crime or his heirs after suffering at the hands of the offender have the choice to either move a court of law or go to the police station to

seek redressal of the grievance.

The victim of crime has hardly any role to play in the whole proceedings except that he may, if alive, be examined by the prosecution as a witness.

Under the CrPC, a victim of crime has got a very limited right of revision and that too under exceptional circumstances. An accused has the

statutory right to be heard on the question of quantum of sentence after conviction is recorded, but, unfortunately a victim of the crime is not so

heard. It is strange that in spite of the fact that a victim of crime, who suffers at the hands of the accused and moves the State through the police or

the courts to seek justice, is given the impression that after having lodged the report or the complaint, he is a ""Mr. Nobody"". Even where he

engages a counsel, during the trial of a case, instituted on a police challan or at the hearing of the appeal, his counsel is treated only as a ""counsel by

sufferance"" and may or may not be heard by the court depending upon the attitude of the State counsel He can at the best assist the public

prosecutor but that also in case the public prosecutor really wants to be assisted by him. A victim of crime is thus a mute witness to the whole

drama.

It is necessary that due notice is paid to the victim of crime to assure him that the society cares and feels for him. He needs justice and the society is

obliged to give him justice and not merely lip service. Let us make a beginning

(emphasis supplied)

The following suggestions are relevant to refer as declared as Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Powers, adopted

by the United Nations General Assembly in November 1985, which is described as a Magna Carta of the Right of Victims by Dr. A.S. Anand, J,

as he then was.

(a) Victims should be treated with compassion and respect for their dignity. They are entitled to access to the mechanisms of justice and to

promote redress, as provided for by the national legislation, for the harm that they have suffered.

(b) Judicial and administrative mechanisms should be established and strengthened where necessary to enable victims to obtain redress through

formal or informal procedures that are expeditious, fair, inexpensive and accessible. Victims should be informed of their rights in seeking redress

through such mechanisms.

(c) Informing victims of their role and the scope, timing and progress of the proceedings and of the disposition of their cases, especially where

serious crimes are involved and where they have requested such information.

(d) Allowing the views and concerns of victims to be presented and considered at appropriate stages of the proceedings where their personal

interests are affected without prejudice to the accused and consistent with the relevant national criminal justice system.

(e) Providing proper assistance to victims throughout the legal process.

(f) Taking measures to minimise inconvenience to victims, protect their privacy where necessary, and ensure their safety, as well as that of their

families and witnesses on their behalf, from intimidation and retaliation. Avoiding unnecessary delay in the disposition of cases and the execution of

orders or decrees granting awards to victims.

(emphasis supplied).

I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the need to appreciate the rights of the victim of crime in criminal jurisprudence cannot be

ignored or lightly disregarded as their righteousness should shine like the dawn and the justice of their cause like noon-day sun. Hence, I see all

reasons and justification on the part of the Government, in acknowledging the grievance of the fifth respondent against the commissions and

omissions of the police authorities and her request to appoint the fourth respondent as Special Public Prosecutor in S.C. No. 183 of 1995, by

passing the impugned G.O., invoking Section 24(8), Cr.P.C. Issue No. 2 is answered accordingly.

Issue No. 3: Whether the appointment of the fourth respondent as Special Public Prosecutor in S.C. No. 183 of 1995 would prejudice the

defence of the petitioner and the same is irregular, illegal and unreasonable?

Truth is an element which is never destroyed. The proceedings may be lost but the ""Truth will always Triumph"". Therefore, while dealing with the

above issue, I do not propose to go into the merits of the case, at this stage, as it would prejudice the trial.

Mr. Ashokan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, while not disputing the right of the State to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor,

seriously contends that the State Government should not have appointed the fourth respondent as Special Public Prosecutor, as the petitioner had

already discussed and consulted his defence to be taken in S.C. No. 183 of 1995, with the fourth respondent. I am unable to accept the

contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in this regard, because the fourth respondent specifically denied such discussion and

consultation, swearing an affidavit before this. Court to the effect that the petitioner never met nor consulted with the fourth respondent nor

discussed the defence to be taken by the petitioner nor the fourth respondent advised any other accused, in connection with S.C. No. 183 of

1995. I do not see any reason to disbelieve the affidavit of the fourth respondent referred to above.

Nobody can dispute the well settled principle that Justice should not only be done, but also appear to be done, as emphasised by the Apex

Court in Rajendra Nigam Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, and the said principle is not at all violated in the instant case, as I do not see

any legitimate reason for any apprehension in the minds of the petitioner, by the appointment of the fourth respondent as Special Public Prosecutor,

in view of the specific denial of the fourth respondent in his affidavit to the effect that the petitioner had never met nor consulted with the fourth

respondent nor discussed the defence to be taken by the petitioner, nor the fourth respondent advised any other accused in connection with S.C.

No. 183 of 1995. Further, considering the gravity of the grievance of the victim namely the fifth respondent, I am of the considered opinion, as

already held, that mere right provided u/s 301(2), Cr.P.C. enabling her to engage a pleader to assist the Public Prosecutor cannot, in any way,

either equated to or whittle down the rights of the State Government to appoint the fourth respondent as Special Public Prosecutor, to conduct the

prosecution effectively, invoking Section 24 (8), Cr.P.C.

Inviting my attention to the representation of the fifth respondent dated 26.9.1997, wherein she has alleged that the petitioner had proposed to

engage a well experienced senior counsel for his defence and therefore, requested to appoint the fourth respondent as Special Public Prosecutor,

Mr. Ashokan, learned senior counsel, placing reliance on the decision in Abdul Khader Musliar Vs. Government of Kerala and Others, , contends

that the said reason could not be considered as a special circumstance requiring the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor, which could be

done only when the public interest demands But the mere reference as to the proposal of the petitioner to engage an experienced senior counsel for

his defence, in the representation of the fifty respondent dated 26.9.1997 itself cannot be a testing factor to ignore the necessity of appointing the

fourth respondent as Special Public Prosecutor in the instant case, namely in S.C. No. 183 of 1995 particularly when the very case has been

registered in Crime No. 5 of 1994 and taken on file as S.C. No. 183 of 1995 on the file of the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge.

Cuddalore, as a result of an impartial investigation by the CB-CID, at the interference of this Court in HCP No. 711 of 1993, after earthing out so

many commissions and omissions of the police authorities involved in the matter, as explained above, as the fourth respondent is not appointed as

Special Public Prosecutor merely because the petitioner had proposed to engage a well experienced senior lawyer for his defence, but for well

considered reasons that weighed the Government, as mentioned above. The ratio laid down in Abdul Khader Musliar Vs. Government of Kerala

and Others, will not render the appointment of the fourth respondent as irregular or illegal or unreasonable.

Further, as held in Mohammed Asif v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 1999 (2) CTC 399 : 1999 1 L.W.(Cri.) 312 it is not for the petitioner

to comment upon the prosecution to be conducted, as long as the conduct of the prosecution is fair and within the four comers of the law and does

not spell any prejudice for the petitioner. As observed by this Court, one cannot ignore the fact that the trial is not free for all affair, who is duty

bound to control the proceedings.

In any event, as held in R. Balakrishna Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and Others, , conviction and awarding of sentence in a criminal case are

powers conferred on the Court concerned depending upon the sufficiency of the evidence to the satisfaction of the Court and as provided under

law. Therefore, I do not see any prejudice to the petitioner in appointing the fourth respondent as Special Public Prosecutor in S.C. No. 183 of

1995 on the file of the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge. Cuddalore nor any illegality or irregularity or unreasonable in passing the

impugned G.O. No. (4-D) Home Department dated 13.10.1997. Issue No. 3 is answered accordingly.

For the above reasons, writ petition is devoid of merits and want of legal contention and hence, the same is dismissed with a direction to the

learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge. Cuddalore to conduct the trial of the above case expeditiously and pass final orders. Consequently

WMP No. 1665 of 1998 is also dismissed. No costs.