Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Kerala has declined a plea seeking the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor to conduct a pending prosecution in a high-profile criminal case before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Nedumangad. The court noted that there is “nothing on record to show that the present Public Prosecutor cannot adequately handle the case.” The Single Bench of  Justice Kauser Edappagath delivered the order on 18 March 2025, dismissing the writ petition filed by a journalist who alleged that the gravity and public interest in the matter necessitated the appointment of a more competent Special Public Prosecutor. The court also referred to the ongoing trial proceedings and Supreme Court directives mandating the expeditious conclusion of the matter, recording that the request could not be accommodated in light of the circumstances.

The petitioner, a journalist by profession, approached the court after making multiple representations to the Government for the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor to prosecute C.C. No. 811/2014, pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Nedumangad. The petitioner contended that the case had far-reaching consequences for the criminal justice system, was highly sensational, and attracted significant public interest, thus warranting the appointment of an advocate of higher standing as a Special Public Prosecutor.

Also Read: Supreme Court Sets Aside Kerala High Court Judgment, Restores Seniority List, States “Assistant Engineers May Opt Between Degree and Diploma Quotas”

The respondents, including the State of Kerala, various senior officials of the Home and Law Departments, the Director General of Prosecution, the State Police Chief, and the concerned Station House Officer, opposed the petition. They filed a detailed counter affidavit challenging the petitioner’s claims.

The prosecution case, as recorded, involves two accused: the first accused, a Thondy Section Clerk of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram, and the second accused, an advocate who appeared in S.C. No. 147/1990. The offences alleged against them are punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 201, 193, 217, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that the first accused, intending to assist the accused in S.C. No. 147/1990, removed a material object (the underwear of the accused) from the court’s custody and handed it to the second accused, who altered it and returned it to court records.

Previously, the accused had secured relief through Criminal M.C. Nos. 5261/2022 and 7805/2022, resulting in the quashing of the final report in C.C. No. 811/2014 by a coordinate bench. However, the Supreme Court of India later intervened via an order dated 20 November 2024, setting aside the High Court’s decision and restoring the proceedings before the Magistrate Court. In its order, the Supreme Court directed that the trial be concluded within one year.

The respondents argued that, in adherence to the Supreme Court’s mandate, the trial commenced on 7 February 2025, with five out of the twenty-nine listed witnesses already examined. The Public Prosecutor representing the prosecution in the matter was actively conducting the proceedings.

The petitioner argued that the alleged omission of an offence under Section 409 IPC was indicative of the Public Prosecutor's inadequacy. The petitioner contended that a competent Public Prosecutor would have filed an application under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. to include the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 409 IPC, given the nature of the allegations.

The court recorded that the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor on 17 January 2025, despite being aware of the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment and the directive to complete the trial within one year. The court referred to Exhibit P15, being the circular issued by the Government of Kerala regarding the appointment of Special Public Prosecutors. The circular stipulates that such appointments shall only be made when it is established that a duly appointed Public Prosecutor cannot adequately handle the case.

The court observed, “there is nothing on record to show that the present Public Prosecutor who conducts the prosecution cannot adequately handle the case.” It further recorded that “the five key witnesses were already examined” and stated that the petitioner’s timing in filing the writ petition raised concerns in the context of the Supreme Court’s directive.

Addressing the petitioner’s argument regarding Section 409 IPC, the court recorded, “If the Magistrate Court while receiving the final report and taking cognizance was of the view that Section 409 of IPC also was involved, ought to have returned the final report with a direction to conduct further investigation.” The court also noted that the trial court, before commencing the trial, had the authority to direct further investigation, as did the Investigating Officer at any stage, if Section 409 IPC was applicable.

Rejecting the petitioner’s argument on this point, the court recorded, “there is no merit in the argument that Section 409 of IPC was also involved and the Public Prosecutor failed to appraise the same before the Court.”

Also Read: “Acts Done Without Approval Under Section 17A Are ‘Null and Void’, Karnataka High Court: ‘Approval is Imperative to Safeguard Against Vexatious Prosecution’”

Ultimately, the court concluded that, in the absence of concrete material to suggest that the present Public Prosecutor was unable to manage the trial effectively, coupled with the fact that the trial was underway and constrained by a Supreme Court directive to conclude expeditiously, the petitioner’s plea for appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor could not be accepted.

The court dismissed the writ petition, recording, “the request made by the petitioner for the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor cannot be allowed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Ajit G Anjarlekar, Advocate; G.P. Shinod, Advocate; Govind Padmanaabhan, Advocate; Gayathri S.B., Advocate; Atul Mathews, Advocate

For the Respondents: C.K. Suresh, Senior Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Anil K Emmanuel v. State of Kerala and Others

Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:23084

Case Number: WP(CRL) No. 81 of 2025

Bench: Justice Kauser Edappagath

[Read/Download order]