Bombay High Court

VINAYAK SHRIPATI KARADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: SANDIPKUMAR C MORE ABASAHEB D SHINDE

Holding

The petition lacks merit as the case does not satisfy the criteria for appointing a Special Public Prosecutor, and the rejection is upheld.

Summary

The petitioner, who was the original informant in a 2021 sessions case arising from a land dispute, sought the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor, alleging that the regular prosecutor was not prosecuting diligently and that the accused were influential. The respondent, a law department official, rejected the request, citing Rule 22 of the Maharashtra Law Officers Rules which limits such appointments to specific categories of offences, none of which applied to the present case. The petitioner argued the rejection was without valid grounds, while the respondent provided a report confirming the competence and diligence of the current prosecutor. The court examined whether the case met any of the enumerated categories for a Special Public Prosecutor and found it did not. Consequently, the court concluded that the rejection was proper and dismissed the petition.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor under Rule 22 of the Maharashtra Law Officers Rules.
Whether the present case falls within any of the categories specified for such appointment.
Whether the respondent's rejection of the petition, without detailed reasons, is legally valid.

Subjects

Special Public Prosecutor
Maharashtra Law Officers Rules
Rule 22
land dispute
public prosecutor competence
criminal procedure

Judgment

                        1                  Criminal WP No.1695-25

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1695 OF 2025

                 VINAYAK SHRIPATI KARAD
                         VERSUS
          THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                                 ….
Mr. Rahul P. Cheble, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. N. B. Patil, APP for Respondent - State
                                 ….
                        CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                                  ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.

                      DATED : 02/02/2026.


ORDER :

1.    Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally at the
admission stage with the consent of the learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as the learned APP for the respondent–State.


2.    By way of the present petition, the petitioner, who is the
original informant in Sessions Case No.18 of 2021, has challenged
the   impugned   communication     dated     12/09/2025         issued   by
Respondent No.2, whereby the request of the petitioner in the
aforesaid sessions case for appointment of Mr. Balraj Vishwanath
Reddy as a Special Public Prosecutor has been rejected.



3.    The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
accused persons are influential and that the regular Public
Prosecutor presently conducting the case is not prosecuting the
matter diligently. According to him, Respondent No.2, without any
                          2                 Criminal WP No.1695-25

valid ground, rejected the petitioner’s request without assigning
proper reasons.


4.    On the contrary, the learned APP supported the action of
Respondent No. 2 and submitted that the Public Prosecutor, Shri
Shivnarayan Randad, who is presently conducting the prosecution
in the aforesaid case, is competent and experienced. It was further
submitted that the case has arisen out of a land dispute between
two groups from the same village, and therefore, the request for
appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor, as made by the
petitioner, cannot be considered, having regard to Rule 22 of the
Maharashtra Law Officers Rules and also considering the fact that
the said case does not fall within any of the following categories:

     I.      any offence of in backward class,
     II.     involvement offfence against women,
     III.    Plan and collusion committing murder,
     IV.     group committing murder,
     V.      an economic offence wherein public money has
             been defrauded,
     VI.     an offence by an extremists or
     VII.    an offence of law and order in the country,
     VIII.   an offence wherein a serious question of
             offence arises.


5.    Admittedly, the request for appointment of a Special Public
Prosecutor, as made by the petitioner, has been rejected by
Respondent No.2. In the reply filed by the Joint Secretary, Law and
Judiciary    Department,      Mantralaya,      Mumbai,         Branch   at
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, it has been stated that the case at
                        3                Criminal WP No.1695-25

hand does not satisfy the aforesaid criteria as submitted by the
learned APP.   It further appears from the report of the Director
General of Prosecution, Latur, that the present Additional Public
Prosecutor, Shri Randad, is conducting the prosecution diligently
and effectively. In addition, the petitioner is at liberty to appoint
an advocate to assist the Public Prosecutor. The case also appears
to have arisen out of a family dispute. Therefore, we are satisfied
that the decision refusing appointment of a Special Public
Prosecutor, as sought by the petitioner, is in consonance with the
applicable criteria referred to hereinabove.     As such, we find no
merit in the petition and the same stands dismissed.



( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE J. )         ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE , J. )


VS Maind/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…