JUDGMENT : C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, J. 1. The de facto complainant in S.C.545/2024 pending before the Fast Tract Special Court-II, Thrissur, arising out of crime No.898/2022 of Viyyur police station filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to appoint Adv.Johnson T.Thomas as Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the prosecution in the above Sessions Case, as provided under Section 24 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure . 2. The offences involved in the above case are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 427, 380, 506(i), 294(b), 448, 354, 308, 201 r/w 149 IPC. The prosecution case is that due to the enmity of the accused persons 1 to 16 and two juveniles in conflict with law towards the de facto complainant, as this Court ordered further investigation in a case in which the scooter of the de facto complainant was set on fire, on 1.12.2022 at about 8.15 p.m they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons with the common object of attacking the de facto complainant, trespassed into her residence, pulled her out of the house, voluntarily caused hurt to her by hitting with stones and using their limbs, intimidated to do away with her, abused her using filthy words and outraged her modesty. It is also alleged that if the blow inflicted by the 1 st accused towards her forehead using a stone was not resisted by her using hands, the same would have even resulted in causing her death. There is a further allegation that in the incident the 2 nd accused snatched away a gold chain weighing 4 sovereigns worn by the de facto complainant and stole her mobile phone and money. 3. According to the petitioner, the accused persons are highly influential, both politically and financially and having least respect to the law. They are not bothered even to respect the protection order of this Court. She apprehends that the prosecution may not be sufficiently effective, particularly during the examination of witnesses. According to her, the case involves grave public interest as she was brutally attacked while the protection order passed by this Court was in force. Though she had given Ext.P3 request for appointing a Special Public Prosecutor, the same was declined as per Ext.P6 letter issued by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Kerala. According to her, the case involves grave public interest as she was brutally attacked while the protection order passed by this Court was in force. Though she had given Ext.P3 request for appointing a Special Public Prosecutor, the same was declined as per Ext.P6 letter issued by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Kerala. It was in the above context that she preferred this Writ Petition for appointing a Special Public Prosecutor. 4. The petition was strongly opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that as per the Circular No.264/C4/2017/Home, dated 18.9.2017, certain guidelines were prescribed by the Government for appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor and according to him, the case involved in the instant case does not come within the purview of the above Circular and as such, he justified Ext.P6 rejecting the prayer for appointing a Special Public Prosecutor. 5. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the above Circular itself would argue that before taking a decision the Government has to consult the District Police Chief concerned, that in the instant case no such consultation was made and therefore, she prayed for setting aside Ext.P6 by allowing this Writ Petition. 6. Clause (b) and (c) of the above Circular reads as follows : b) The following among other categories of cases, shall ordinarily be considered for the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor :- i) Cases such as heinous murder or kidnapping or rape particularly of minor and which are gruesome in character shocking the collective conscience of the community at large. ii) Ofences against property having wide ramifications such as money chain dealings, cheating cases/land grab cases, land mafia cases or other white collar crimes involving fabrication of records, documents etc, apartment frauds, investment fraud etc. iii) Cases involving police atrocities, custodial death, etc where the prime accused are police personnel. iv) Offences affecting human body in which hired assassins had been engaged. v) Crimes having inter-state ramifications. vi) Crimes of major magnitude involving terrorism. vii) Cases investigated by Special investigation Team constituted by Government under Sec.21(2)(b) of the Kerala Police Act , 2011, and committed in an extremely brutal and dastardly manner due to political or communal vengeance so as to arouse intense indignation of the Community. viii) Case which require specialised knowledge, such as cyber crimes, intellectual property rights. vii) Cases investigated by Special investigation Team constituted by Government under Sec.21(2)(b) of the Kerala Police Act , 2011, and committed in an extremely brutal and dastardly manner due to political or communal vengeance so as to arouse intense indignation of the Community. viii) Case which require specialised knowledge, such as cyber crimes, intellectual property rights. c) The appointment of Special Public Prosecutor shall be made only after consulting the District Police Chief concerned and only on the basis of the specific legal advice of the Director General of Prosecution regarding the scope for the absolute necessity of appointing a Special Public Prosecutor for effectively conducting the prosecution in the case under consideration. The District Police Chief shall obtain the willingness of the Advocate who is willing to conduct the case and report whether he is qualified to be appointed as Special Public Prosecutor under Section 24 (8) of Cr.P.C and has no vested interest and also with a declaration from the Advocate to the effect that she/he has no conflicting interest in the conduct of the case concerned and also whether she/he is willing to take up the assignment accepting regulation fee prescribed in the Kerala Government Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) and Conduct of Cases Rules, 1978. The willingness/consent of the advocate shall be in the prescribed format appended herewith. 7. From the above Circular it is revealed that the categories of cases mentioned in clause (b) are not exclusive. Clause 3(a) of the Circular dealing with revised guidelines for the appointment of Special Public Prosecutors reads as follows :- 3). The revised guidelines formulated are as follows :- (a) The appointment of Special Public Prosecutor by the Government under Section 24 (8) of Cr.P.C shall be made by the Government either suo motu or on the basis of application by any aggrieved person only when public interest demands it and not to vindicate the grievances of private persons. However, such appointment shall be made only on being satisfied that the case cannot be adequately handled by any of the duly appointed Public Prosecutors, who are receiving salary out of Government funds and on being further satisfied as to necessitate the appointment of a more competent Advocate of good standing as a Special Public Prosecutor. 8. However, such appointment shall be made only on being satisfied that the case cannot be adequately handled by any of the duly appointed Public Prosecutors, who are receiving salary out of Government funds and on being further satisfied as to necessitate the appointment of a more competent Advocate of good standing as a Special Public Prosecutor. 8. Therefore, if the Government is satisfied that the case cannot be adequately handled by any of the duly appointed Public Prosecutors and if the case is highly sensational and generates extensive public interest etc., the Government may appoint a Special Public Prosecutor. As per clause (c), appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor shall be made only after consulting the District Police Chief concerned and only on the basis of a specific legal advice by the Director General of Prosecution regarding the scope for the absolute necessity of appointing a Special Public Prosecutor for effectively conducting the prosecution in the case under consideration. 9. In the instant case, previously the petitioner filed a Writ Petition before this Court as W.P.(C).33196/2022 seeking adequate police protection for herself and her daughter. As per the judgment dated 20.3.2025, this Court has directed the SHO, Viyyur police station, that if there is any attack by the petitioner or respondents 5 to 13 and if a complaint is received in that respect, necessary action is to be taken to protect the life of the petitioner as well as respondents 5 to 13. According to the petitioner, it was during the pendency of the above protection order that the accused persons, 18 in number, trespassed into her residence during night, armed with deadly weapons and brutally attacked her, robbed her and intimidated to do away with her. From the materials available, it is prima facie revealed that the accused persons 18 in number trespassed into the residence of the de facto complainant during the night and brutally attacked and robbed her, while the protection order passed by this Court was in force. 10. On a perusal of Ext.P6 letter issued by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government in response to Ext.P3 representation given by the de facto complainant for appointing a Special Public Prosecutor it can be seen that, the District Police Chief was not consulted before taking a decision. 10. On a perusal of Ext.P6 letter issued by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government in response to Ext.P3 representation given by the de facto complainant for appointing a Special Public Prosecutor it can be seen that, the District Police Chief was not consulted before taking a decision. On the other hand, it is revealed that such a decision was taken merely on the basis of the letter issued by the Director General of Prosecution. Unless and until the District Police Chief is consulted, the ground realities including the apprehension raised by the petitioner, could be ascertained and evaluated. In the above circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to reconsider Ext.P3 and pass appropriate orders afresh, after consulting the District Police Chief concerned. In the result, this W.P.(Crl) is disposed of as above.