39 Wp-4578-2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4578 OF 2025 Satish Sarjerao Raut. ...Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and Others. ...Respondents. —————— Mr. Anand S. Patil for the Petitioner. Mrs. S. N. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent-State. —————— Coram : M. S. Karnik & Ajit B. Kadethankar, JJ. Date : November 18, 2025. Oral Order (Per M. S. Karnik, J.) : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 25th September 2025 passed by the State of Maharashtra rejecting the request made by the Petitioner under Rule 22 of the Rules for Conduct of Legal Afairs of Government, 1984 [for short “Rules of 1984”], for appointing the Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the trial of Sessions Case No. 148 of 2017. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that the Petitioner iled FIR bearing C.R. No.33 of 2016 with Panhala Police Station on the allegations of commission of ofences punishable under Sections 395, 452, 427, 323 and 504 of IPC, which was registered as Sessions Case No. 148 of 2017. Patil-SR 1 of 6 39 Wp-4578-2025.doc 4. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that allegations in the FIR are of serious nature. It is submitted that case of the Petitioner is that 13 persons had come to the house of Petitioner on 22nd April 2016 at about 10 p.m. with sticks, spades and other instruments in their hands and demolished the dwelling house and grocery shop of Petitioner. It is alleged that cash of Rs.15,000/- as well as the gold ornaments were also taken away. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the accused persons were holding political positions at gram panchayat at the time of incident and they are inancially sound and politically inluential persons. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that It is the apprehension of Petitioner that the trial of said Sessions Case may not be conducted by the present Assistant / Additional Public Prosecutor properly which will cause great prejudice to the Petitioner and same will result in injustice. It is submitted that charge-sheet has been iled, charges have been framed and now the Petitioner, i.e., the irst informant is in the witness box. In paragraph 8 of the petition it is stated that Petitioner entered into the witness box and has put up his case in his examination in chief. However, at that time the Petitioner felt that the present public prosecutor is not co-operating with him and is not putting his case properly before the Court and therefore, there is Patil-SR 2 of 6 39 Wp-4578-2025.doc some doubt in the mind of Petitioner whether his case would be properly put up before the Court. The Petitioner therefore, requested for engagement of a special public prosecutor under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1984. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that when query was raised by the State Government as to whether the Petitioner is willing to bear the expenses for engagement of advocate Mr. B. M. Shastri as Special Public Prosecutor, the Petitioner has communicated his consent/willingness for payment of necessary charges. He submitted that therefore when the Petitioner is willing to pay the necessary charges for the engagement of Special Public Prosecutor, there should have been no diiculty for the State Government to have accepted such a request considering the seriousness of matter and serious nature of allegations and the manner in which the case is being put up by present Assistant / Additional Public Prosecutor. 8. To appreciate the submissions of learned Counsel for the Petitioner it is pertinent to refer to Rule 22 of the Rules of 1984, which reads thus : “22. Engagement of Special Public Prosecutor.- (1) The Government in the Law and Judiciary Department, either suo- motu or on the request of any aggrieved party or the concerned Department in the Government, may engage an advocate who has been in practice as an advocate for not less than ten years, and having regard to his general repute, legal acumen and suitability, by appointing him, as a Special Public Prosecutor in any criminal case or class of cases as the case may be : Patil-SR 3 of 6 39 Wp-4578-2025.doc Provided that, no order under this sub-rule regarding appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor shall be made unless, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, the Remembrance of Legal Afairs is satisied, having regard to the nature of the case, gravity of the matter and public interest involved in the matter that such appointment is necessary. (2) On the request of a private complainant not being the aggrieved party, the Government in the Law and Judiciary Department may, appoint any of the Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor as a Special Public Prosecutor in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (1), for conducting any such case. (3) Fees for such Special Public Prosecutor, appointed under sub-rule (1) or (2), may be borne by the Government or the aggrieved party or the private complainant, as may be directed by the Remembrancer of Legal Afairs: Provided that, in cases where the aggrieved party is, a Bank or an Institution or Trust or the like, the fees small be borne by such aggrieved party: Provided further that, the amount of the fees to be paid to such Special Public Prosecutor, shall be deposited with the Government in the Law and Judiciary Department irst, and the same shall be paid by it to such Special Public Prosecutor on completion of the trial, unless directed otherwise by the Remembrancer of Legal Afairs.". 9. Reading of the the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 of the Rules of 1984 would indicate that the order regarding appointment of Special Public Prosecutor shall be made for the reasons to be recorded in writing upon the Remembrancer of Legal Afairs being satisied having regard to the nature of the case, gravity of the matter and public interest involved in the matter, that such appointment is necessary. Patil-SR 4 of 6 39 Wp-4578-2025.doc 10. We have perused the application made by the Petitioner. Even in the memo of petition what is stated is that when the Petitioner was being examined in chief, he felt that present Public Prosecutor is not co-operating with him and is not putting up the Petitioner’s case properly before the Court. Except for such doubt, there is nothing on record to indicate that the circumstances which are spelt out in proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 of the Rules of 1984 are satisied in the present case to make out a case for appointment of Special Public Prosecutor. It is not mere ipse dixit of the Petitioner which forms the basis of an appointment under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1984, but on the satisfaction of the authority, for the reasons to be recorded in writing that the conditions speciied therein exist. We are, therefore not inclined at this stage to entertain the present petition. We do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order merely because the Petitioner is willing to pay the necessary charges for engagement of a special public prosecutor. 11. We, however, make it clear that if during the course of trial, circumstances emerge necessitating the engagement of a Special Public Prosecutor, upon the conditions laid down in proviso to sub-rule (1) to Rule 22 of the Rules of 1984 being satisied, it is open for the Petitioner to make an appropriate application for appointment of Special Public Prosecutor, which shall be considered on its own merits Patil-SR 5 of 6 39 Wp-4578-2025.doc without being inluenced by the rejection of the earlier application. 12. Petition stands rejected. 13. It is open for the Petitioner to make a request to the trial Court for permission to engage an advocate who can assist the public prosecutor. Further, if the Petitioner apprehends that his case is not being dealt with properly by the present public prosecutor, it is open for the Petitioner to make an application to the District Government Pleader seeking appropriate reliefs which obviously will be dealt with on its own merits. [Ajit B. Kadethankar, J.] [M. S. Karnik, J.] Patil-SR 6 of 6