Chandra Pillai vs State Of Kerala[Kerala 2009 January]

Keywords:- Private prosecutor

Kerala

Act: Section 301(2) Cr.P.C

Date : 15 January, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 37187 of 2008(B)

1. CHANDRA PILLAI, S/O.NEELAKANTAN PILLAI,
… Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.

3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM.

4. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION,

5. HARICHANDRAN PILLAI,

6. SUDARSANAN,

7. RADHADEVI,

                                                                  … Respondents

For Petitioner : SRI.S.VASUDEVAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon’ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :15/01/2009

O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
———————-
W.P.C.No.37187 of 2008
—————————————-
Dated this the 15th day of January 2009

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner had filed a private complaint alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 304(B) I.P.C by the accused persons. It was a private complaint. Cognizance was taken on such private complaint. The case was committed to the court of Session. The matter is pending before the court of Sessions now.

2. According to the petitioner, the State is not interested in the prosecution at all. The prosecutor has no papers available with him. It is the petitioner, the private complainant, who has all the necessary documents and materials available with him. The petitioner, for the proper conduct of his case, wanted the Government to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor. That application was rejected. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has come before this court.

3. In the course of discussions at the Bar, the learned Director General of Prosecutions appearing for the respondent/State submits that the State has no objection in a counsel appointed by the petitioner conducting the prosecution true to the spirit of Section 301(2) Cr.P.C subject to the over all control of the Prosecutor. The Prosecutor does not want to interfere with the conduct of the case; but he is duty bound to ensure that the trial is conducted in a fair and reasonable manner. For this purpose alone, the Prosecutor wants to exercise his control over the case. The counsel appointed by the petitioner can conduct the case under Section 301(2) Cr.P.C. He can examine witnesses. He can cross- examine witnesses. He can do all the other needful acts; but always under the control and guidance of the Prosecutor duly appointed to secure the interests of justice, that is to ensure that the prosecution does not deteriorate into unnecessary persecution.

4. With the above observation, making it clear that the counsel appointed by the petitioner under Section 301(2) Cr.P.C shall be at liberty to conduct the case – including the examination and cross-examination of witnesses – all under the over all control of the Prosecutor, this writ petition is dismissed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier a crime under Section 174 Cr.P.C under the caption ‘unnatural death’ had been registered. The petitioner may want the details of those documents. The petitioner can certainly apply and the State/respondent must make the necessary documents available to facilitate proper conduct of the case.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

jsr

R.BASANT, J.

CRL.M.CNo.

ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007