Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2016 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 1313 - HC - Indian LawsJurisdiction to pass an order in respect of appointing a Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the petitioner’s son’s death case - Rule 4(5) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - HELD THAT:- It is seen that the matter is pending before the Sessions Court for trial. The power to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor under the Criminal procedure Code is entirely different from the one laid down under the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989. It is no doubt true that under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Government is the ultimate authority to appoint a person in terms of Section 301 Cr.P.C. The contention of the respondents that in the event of the aggrieved party choosing a lawyer of his choice from other States, it will have a bearing on the Government financially, cannot be accepted, as Rule 4(6) clearly stipulates that payment of fee vests only with the Government and selection of the lawyer is with the victim. The fee fixed other than the one fixed by the Government cannot be sought to be increased either by the victim or by the relative of the victim or the lawyer, who is appearing for the victim/relative of the victim. It is to be noted that SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989 is a Special Act enacted to view seriously the atrocities committed on the members of the downtrodden communities, the objective of which is enumerated by including Sections 20 and 21 in the Act. Firstly, the entire Rule 4(1) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989 has got to be read as a whole and not in isolation. Even assuming for the sake of argument that Rule 4(1) has got to be read alone, it deals with the preparation of panels and it is not mandatory on the part of the victim/relative of the victim to choose a lawyer only from the panel. In the impugned order, it has been merely stated that the 1 st respondent has no jurisdiction to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor, but while arguing the case, the respondents are trying to improve their case by relying on various Rules and Acts irrespective of what is stated in the impugned order, which cannot be permissible, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MOHINDER SINGH GILL & ANR. VERSUS THE CHIIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI & ORS. [1977 (12) TMI 138 - SUPREME COURT], has clearly held that by way of a counter, the reasons not stated in the impugned order cannot be improved by the respondent concerned. Therefore, what is not stated in the impugned order cannot be allowed to be canvassed before this Court. Petition allowed.
|