Sri Jaikeshan Virwani vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 August, 2012

[Cites 3, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Jaikeshan Virwani vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 August, 2012

Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar

                              1



   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

        DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF AUGUST 2012

                            BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR

        WRIT PETITION NO.11623 OF 2012 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

Sri Jaikeshan Virwani
S/o Mohandas Virwani
Aged about 43 years
R/a No.11B, Embassy Palace
Cunningham Road
Bangalore-560052.                             ..Petitioner

(By Sri M.H. Hidayathulla for Adlaw Partners, Adv.,)

AND :

1. The State of Karnataka
   Rep by the Secretary
   Law Department
   Vidhana Soudha
   Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi
   Bangalore.

2. V.K. Patil
   Advocate
   Major
   No.109, I Floor
   5th Cross, Pranava Complex
   Opposite Big Bazaar
                               2



  Malleshwaram
  Bangalore-560 003.

3. Smt. S. Hemalatha
   D/o late K. Subbaanna
   Major
   D2, Chartered Sannidhi Apartment
   No.17, Sannidhi Road
   Basavangudi, Bangalore-04.                  ..Respondents

(By Sri Narendra Prasad, GP., for R1;
Sri M. Vinay Keerthy, Adv., for R2;
Sri T.P. Rajendra Kumar Sungay, Adv., for R3)



     This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the notification
dated 22.2.2012 issued by the first respondent vide
Annexure-A as arbitrary, illegal and unjust.


      This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing in
'B' group this day, the Court made the following.


                         ORDER

By the impugned order, the State Government has appointed Respondent No.2 as Special Public Prosecutor in C.C. NO.22370/2009 pending on the file of the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. 3

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that absolutely no reasons are assigned in the impugned order Annexure-A to show the intention of the State Government as to why Special Public Prosecutor ('SPP' for short) is appointed in C.C. NO.22370/2009.

3. The above contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Under Section-24(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure-1973, the State Government or the Central Government may appoint for the purposes of any case or class of cases, an advocate having practice of not less than ten years, as a SPP. The reasons could not be assigned for appointment of SPP. There is no doubt that all the administrative orders should be backed by the reasons. But in the matter on hand, the State Government has merely chosen to appoint the SPP to present its case. The petitioner cannot compel the State Government to appoint or not to appoint any person as SPP. It is for the State 4 Government to decide appointment of SPP depending on the fact situation. Hence no interference is called for.

Petition fails and the same stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Gss/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court