Public Prosecutor Being Counsel For Complainant Or Remuneration Being Paid By Complainant Vitiates Fair Trial: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court passed an interim order staying notification issued by the state government for the appointment of the complainant’s counsel as Public Prosecutor and directing that his remuneration be paid by the complainant in the case against M. Naresh Shenoy. The Court observed that the notification violated fair trial, which is not only the right of the victim but also of the accused.
The Court was told that the trial is in progress against the Petitioner and that the appointment of Respondent as the Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the case is vitiated, on account of him being the counsel for the complainant.
The bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed, “…The issue would cut at the root of the matter as fair trial is not only the right of the victim but also of the accused.”
Senior Advocate Aruna Shyam M. appeared for the Petitioner.
Learned Senior Counsel attracted the attention of the Court to the petition under Section 407 of the Cr.P.C., filed by the respondent on behalf of the complainant seeking transfer of the case before the Court and taking cue from the said proceedings, he submitted that the respondent could not be appointed as the Special Public Prosecutor.
The Court noted that the remuneration that is to be paid to the State Public Prosecutor is directed to be paid by the complainant herself. Therefore, according to the Court, it is a case that is vitiated due to twin circumstances. One, the State Public Prosecutor is the counsel for the complainant and the remuneration is directed to be paid by the complainant herself.
“This runs completely foul of the judgment rendered by a co-ordinate bench of this Court way back in the year 2005 in the case of Sri K.V. Shiva Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka Rep. by its Secretary and Others reported in ILR 2005 Kar 4780.”, the Court held.
The Court noted that in the same case, when another counsel was sought to be appointed as a prosecutor, the appointment was set aside on the score that he was the counsel representing the complainant and the remuneration was directed to be paid by the complainant. “Even then, the State has lost over the said order and passed another order, which is impugned in the said petition.”, the Court observed.
The Court stayed the impugned notification. However, the Court made it clear that the trial has not been stayed and said that the pendency of the petition will not create any sort of impediment for the concerned Court to proceed with the trial with the assistance of the regular State Public Prosecutor.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Adv. Aruna Shyam M. and Adv. Suyog Herele E
Cause Title: M Naresh Shenoy v. State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: KAHC010339652024)
