# STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS v. PRAKASH PRAHLAD PATIL & ORS

- **Citation:** [2009] 6 S.C.R. 392
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2009-04-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 748 of 2009
- **Bench:** Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Asok Kumar Ganguly
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-maharashtra-ors-v-prakash-prahlad-patil-ors-25857
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

).. .
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
D accused - In that sense, writ petition before High Court was
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
G supreme Jex to other organs of the State - 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 - Administrative Law - Policy decision -
H
392
""'
_..j
.4'
...
·-'of
...
-1,
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. v. PRAKASH
393
PRAHLAD PATIL & ORS.
Judicial Review.

## Text

[2009] 6 S.C.R. 392
..
-t
A
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
v.
PRAKASH PRAHLAD PATIL & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 748 of 2009)
8
APRIL 16, 2009
[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
D accused - In that sense, writ petition before High Court was
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
G supreme Jex to other organs of the State - 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 - Administrative Law - Policy decision -
H
392
""'
_..j
.4'
...
·-'of
...
-1,
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. v. PRAKASH
393
PRAHLAD PATIL & ORS.
Judicial Review.
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
of 2008.
Sanjay Kharde and Asha Gopalan Nqir for the Appellants.
Nikhil Goel, Sayid Marzook Bafaki, Sheela Goel,
Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Arundhati S. Sukhtankar and Naresh
Kumar for the Respondents.
The Order of the Court was delivered:
ORDER
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
Court challenge was to the appointment of the present
respondent No.3 as a Special Public Prosecutor for conducting
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
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
was also the stand of respondent No.1 that the view expressed
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
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
394
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 6 S.C.R.
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 quasijudicial 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
0
intended to assume a supervisory role or don the robes of
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
G
H
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.
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 nonapplication of mind. In any event, the appointment of a Special
t
. )-
-
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. v. PRAKASH
395
PRAHLAD PATIL & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
1
A
1 Public Prosecutor to conduct a proceeding does not in any way
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.