C.Santhanakumar vs The District Magistrate/
2024 Latest Caselaw 18633 Mad

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 18633 Mad
Judgement Date : 20 September, 2024

Madras High Court

C.Santhanakumar vs The District Magistrate/ on 20 September, 2024

Author: R.Subramanian

Bench: R.Subramanian

                                                                                        W.A.(MD)No.1637 of 2024

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                       DATED : 20.09.2024

                                                            CORAM:

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
                                                      AND
                                    THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

                                                     W.A.(MD)No.1637 of 2024

                 C.Santhanakumar                                          ... Appellant/Petitioner
                                                             versus

                 The District Magistrate/
                       District Collector,
                 Tirunelveli District,
                 Tirunelveli.                                             ... Respondent/Respondent

                 PRAYER: Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the
                 order of this Court dated 27.02.2024 passed in W.P.(MD)No.3577 of 2017.
                                     For Appellant      : Mr.A.Robinson
                                                          for M/s.E.J.Daniel Robinson
                                     For Respondent     : Mr.S.P.Maharajan,
                                                          Special Government Pleader

                                                          JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

The writ petition filed by the appellant, seeking appointment of a Special

Public Prosecutor to prosecute the case in S.C.No.75 of 2009 on his behalf, was

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

dismissed by the Writ Court on the ground that the writ petitioner was unable to

point out any provisions or rules, which enable or obligate the Government to

appoint a Special Public Prosecutor to prosecute the private complaint.

2. Admittedly, the private complaint is one filed under the Scheduled Caste

and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Rule 4 of the Rules

framed thereunder, namely, the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Rules 1995, provides for supervision of prosecution

and submission of report.

3. Sub-Rule 5 to Rule 4 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Rules 1995 reads as follows:

“5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate may, if deem necessary or if so desired by the victims of atrocity, engage an eminent Senior Advocate for conduction cases in the Special Courts on such payment of fee as he may consider appropriate.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4. A reading of the Sub-Rule 5 to Rule 4 of the Scheduled Caste and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules 1995 makes it clear that the

obligation is imposed on the State to conduct cases for the victims of atrocity in

Special Courts or Exclusive Special Courts. This provision does not make a

difference between the prosecution launched by the State and the prosecution

launched pursuant to a private complaint under Section 156 Cr.P.C.

5. In the light of the above, this Writ Appeal is allowed and the order dated

27.02.2024 passed by the Writ Court in W.P.(MD)No.3577 of 2017 is set aside.

There will be a direction to the District Collector, Tirunelveli District, to appoint

a Special Public Prosecutor of the choice of the writ petitioner/appellant to

conduct the prosecution. The representation made by the writ petitioner/appellant

on 27.08.2024 shall be considered by the District Collector in appointing a