Bombay high court asked the government to furnish details of fees and facilities provided to Nikam, as opposed to what other prosecutors receive, to the court on Tuesday.
PIL questions special public prosecutor’s appointment to represent state in Sangli case
MUMBAI: Expressing disapproval over the state government’s decision to appoint special public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam to represent the state in a double murder trial in Sangli, the Bombay high court on Monday asked the government to furnish details of fees and facilities provided to Nikam, as opposed to what other prosecutors receive, to the court on Tuesday.
A PIL filed by Sangli-based Prakash Patil said the government had appointed 36 public prosecutors in Sangli district, but a notification was issued appointing Nikam as special PP on October 12, 2007. Patil, in his PIL, said Jalgaon-based Nikam’s appointment implied additional expenses of accommodation and travel along with his fees, which would be ultimately recovered from public funds.
“When there are 36 public prosecutors in Sangli, why should you (state government) take a man from Mumbai to appear in the trial?” justice Bilal Nazki said. “Does the state government have faith only in Nikam?” he retorted.
Patil’s PIL also said the appointment of special public prosecutor under the Criminal Procedure Code was a power that the government could use in “exceptional circumstances”. The PIL further said such appointment should not be be every time a request for it was made. Quizzing the government over its decision to appoint special public prosecutors in some cases and not in others, justice Nazki said, “You are giving the general public two different kinds of justice.”
Additional public prosecutor Dadhichi Mhaispurkar said a special public prosecutor was appointed depending upon the gravity of the offence and not the offender. The court, however, warned that unless the necessary details were submitted to the court, it would stay the notification of Nikam’s appointment.
Patil, in his PIL, mentioned that he had great respect towards Nikam, however, he had taken exception to his appointment by the government which was “misused for political considerations”.
The government had appointed Nikam to appear in a double murder case of July 2006 in Islampur in Sangli. Vinayak Patil, the complainant, registered an FIR against Arjun, Sambhaji and Sandip Patil for allegedly killing his father Dilip and brother Vikram. The accused and the complainant, as per the petition, were “hardened criminals” with over seven cases registered against them. The PIL also said they were politically influential. Vinayak and Arjun got involved in a spat after the latter allegedly teased Vinayak’s sister. A day later, the murder of Dilip and Vikram in broad daylight had sent shock waves across Sangli.
j_mayura@dnaindia.net
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}