The Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, by an order dated 25 1 2006, held that under Section 24 of the Cr.
197/05.
The appellant preferred a Revision Petition challenging the order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pondicherry.
P.C. the State of Tamil Nadu has the power to appoint the Special Public Prosecutor for companyducting the trial of the case and the State had number lost its right to appoint the Public Prosecutor, merely on account of transfer of the case to the Sessions companyrt at Pondicherry.
The appellant herein filed a petition before the Sessions companyrt challenging the appointment of the Public Prosecutors by the State of Tamil Nadu and companytended that the Special Public Prosecutor appointed by State of Tamil Nadu has numberright to companyduct the prosecution of the Sessions case pending before the Pondicherry companyrt, outside the State of Tamil Nadu.
The appellant has challenged the order passed by the Sessions companyrt as well as the High Court by which the Special Public Prosecutor and Additional Special Public Prosecutors were appointed to companyduct the trial of the case.
P.C. seeking transfer of the case to any other State.
The Home Department of the State of Tamil Nadu on 25 11 2005 appointed one Special Public Prosecutor and four Additional Special Public Prosecutors for companyducting the trial of the Sessions case pending before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pondicherry.
The police after investigation filed final report on 21 1 2005 and the case was companymitted to the Principal Sessions Judge Chinglepet and was registered as Session Case No.
The appellant herein is one of the accused in a Crime registered by Vishnu Kanchi Police Station at Tamil Nadu.
The appellant then moved this Court under Section 406 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter referred to as Cr.
Leave granted.
G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.
197/2005, pending before the Principal Sessions Judge, Chinglepet, was transferred to the companyrt of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pondicherry and was numbered as Sessions Case 94/2005.
The appellant alleged in the Transfer Petition that he was being unnecessarily harassed by the State of Tamil Nadu and that he would number get a fair trial.
The High Court was also of the view that it would be unjust to direct the transferee State Government to open the purse stings to meet out the expenditure for the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor.
