MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has observed that appointments to public offices should be guided by competence, integrity and professional ability and not by recommendations or other extraneous considerations.
Justice B Pugalendhi made the observations recently after finding that two accused — M Chinnadurai and C Maharaja — secured bail from a lower court due to failure of the special public prosecutor in informing the court that appeals filed by them earlier against rejection of bail were pending before the high court.
The case pertained to the assault on a scheduled caste man in Keeranur village in Madurai in November last year. According to the prosecution, the victim had moved the HC for redistribution of panchami lands in the village that were illegally occupied by the co-accused.
Allegedly holding a grudge against him, the accused assaulted him with sickle. Based on the victim’s complaint, Melur police booked a case against several persons, including the petitioners.
In January this year, the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai, rejected the bail petitions filed by the petitioners, following which they went on an appeal.
Considering the gravity of the allegations, Justice Pugalendhi had earlier sought a report from police regarding the disputed lands.
However, suppressing the pendency of appeals, the accused moved fresh bail applications, hearing which the PCR court released them on bail.
After learning about this, Justice Pugalendhi sought an explanation from the sessions judge, and the latter said he was not informed about it during arguments.
Elaborately discussing the role of a public prosecutor, Justice Pugalendhi observed, “Effective advocacy, fair assistance by the prosecution, adherence to judicial discipline and careful exercise of judicial discretion are indispensable to the administration of justice. It is only when every stakeholder faithfully performs the duty cast upon him that public confidence in the criminal justice system can be sustained.”
Criticising the law officer for failing to properly apprise the lower court judge of the pendency of the appeals, the judge closed the appeals.