STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.versusPRAKASH PRAHLAD PATIL & ORS.

                        [2009] 6 S.C.R. 392                                         ..
                                                                     -t
A              STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
                                 v.
               PRAKASH PRAHLAD PATIL & ORS.
                (Criminal Appeal No. 748 of 2009)
                          APRIL 16, 2009
8
           [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
                        GANGULY, JJ.]
                                                                          )..
                                                                                .
        Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
c
      s.24(8) - Appointment of Special Public Prosecutor -
  Challenged in a writ petition - High Court setting aside the
  appointment - Held: Appointment of a Public Prosecutor to
  conduct proceedings does not in any way cause prejudice to
  accused - In that sense, writ petition before High Court was
D
  wholly misconsceived - Order of High Court set aside - Trial        -"I       ~

  court would complete the trial expeditiously - Rules for the
  Conduct of the Affairs of the Government, 1984 - r.22 -
  Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226.

E       Constitution of India, 1950:

        Article 226 - Writ petition challenging appointment of
  Special Public Prosecutor - Writ petition purported· to be
  under public interest, but later petitioner turned out to be            ¥•
F relation of one of the accused - High Court allowing the
  petition - Held: The power of judicial review is not intended
  to assume a supervisory role - The power is not intended
  either to review governance under the rule of Jaw nor do the
  courts step into the areas exclusively reserved by the
  supreme Jex to other organs of the State - Courts should not
G
  ordinarily interfere with a policy decision of the State - While   ).         "-

  exercising power of judicial review the court is more concerned
  with the decision making process than the merit of the
  decision itself - Administrative Law - Policy decision -

H                                392
                       STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. v. PRAKASH                   393
                                 PRAHLAD PATIL & ORS.

                     Judicial Review.                                                  A
                         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
                     No. 748 of 2009.

                          From the Judgment & Order dated 04.07.2008 of the High
                     Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 234 B
                     of 2008.
""'     _..j
                          Sanjay Kharde and Asha Gopalan Nqir for the Appellants.

                         Nikhil Goel, Sayid Marzook Bafaki, Sheela Goel,
                     Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Arundhati S. Sukhtankar and Naresh
                                                                                       c
                     Kumar for the Respondents.

                          The Order of the Court was delivered:

                                                  ORDER                                D
 .4'      ...

                          DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.

                           2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
                     Bench of the Bombay High Court allowing the Writ Petition filed
                     by present respondent No.1. In the Writ Petition before the High E
                     Court challenge was to the appointment of the present
                     respondent No.3 as a Special Public Prosecutor for conducting
      ·-'of
                     Sessions Case No.41 of 2006 pending before the Sessions
                     Court at lslampur in Sang Ii District. The basic grievance of
                     respondent No.1 was that the appointment of respondent No.3 F
                     as a Special Public Prosecutor was in violation of the scheme
                     of Section 24(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in
                     short "the Code") and Rule 22 of the Rules for the Conduct of
                     the Legal Affairs of Government, 1984 (in short "The Rules"). It
...            -1,
                     was also the stand of respondent No.1 that the view expressed G
                     by this Court in Mukul Dalal v. Union of India, 1988 (3) SCC
                     144, was not kept in view while making the appointment. The
                     appointment of respondent No.3 appears to have been made
                     on the basis of a petition filed by the brother and the son of the
                     victim. This was a case where two persons were killed. Several
                                                                                        H
    394     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2009] 6 S.C.R.
                                                                              t
A accused persons are facing trial. Though initially it was not
  disclosed by respondent No.1 that he is related to one of the
  accused, but later on that fact surfaced during the hearing of
  the matter before the High Court. Then respondent No.1 took
  the stand that he was a social worker and in greater public
B interest the writ petition was filed. The State opposed the
  petition on several grounds: primarily indicating that the scope
  of judicial review of the executive, administrative and quasi-
  judicial action, was extremely limited and this is not a case
  where any interference was called for. It appe~rs from the
C impugned order of the High Court that the original file was
  called for and scanned as if the High Court was hearing an
  appeal against a decision taken. The scope for judicial review
   has been examined by this court in several cases. It has been
  consistently held that the power of judicial review is not
  intended to assume a supervisory role or don the robes of
0
  omnipresent. The power i.s not intended either to review
  governance under the rule of law nor do the courts step into the
   areas exclusively reserved by the supreme lex to other organs
  of the State. A mere wrong decision, without anything more, in
  most of the cases will not be sufficient to attract the power of
E judicial review. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred upon a
   court is limited to see that the authority concerned functions
  within its limits of its authority and that its decisions do not
  occasion miscarriage of justice.

F         3. The courts cannot be called upon to undertake
    governmental duties and functions. Courts should not ordinarily
    interfere with a policy decision of the State. While exercising
    power of judicial review the court is more concerned with the
    decision making process than the merit of the decision itself.
G                                                                      . )-
         4. In the instant case, acting on a petition filed by close
    relatives of a victim decisions have been taken at various
    levels. The High Court was not justified to pick up stray
    sentences from the records to conclude that there was non-
    application of mind. In any event, the appointment of a Special
H
             STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. v. PRAKASH                     395
             PRAHLAD PATIL & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
    1   1   Public Prosecutor to conduct a proceeding does not in any way      A
            cause prejudice to the accused. In that sense the writ petition
            before the High Court was wholly misconceived. The impugned
            judgment of the High Court is set aside. Since the trial appears
            to have been held up, we direct that the trial court shall make
            all possible endeavours to see that the trial is completed         B
            expeditiously and in any event not later than by the end of
            October, 2009. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

                5. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.4051 of 2009 also
            stands disposed of.                                                c
            R.P.                                          Appeal allowed.




-