Calcutta High Court Directs State To Change Public Prosecutor In POCSO Case Against Local Councillor

The Calcutta High Court has directed the State to change its public prosecutor in a POCSO case, and replace her with someone who is competent and having some experience in POCSO matters, to conduct the prosecution case in question.

A single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya ordered for the change to be made within 48 hours, in a case against a local Councillor. It also said that the petitioner would be free to approach the Court if they were apprehensive of the newly appointed public prosecutor as well. It stated:

The said allegations squarely come within the purview of the POCSO Act. There is absolutely no reasonable basis whatsoever for the authorities to have filed an application for segregation of the allegations against him in a separate trial, out of the purview of the POCSO Act. It transpires from the nature of the questions made to the victim/petitioner that the specific nature of the allegations made by the petitioner were not reflected in the line of questioning. This court is sufficiently impressed by the apprehension of the petitioner to the extent that the prosecution case may suffer in the hands of the present Public Prosecutor. 

It was submitted by the petitioner that they were a victim in a POCSO case and sought to change the public prosecutor who was handling the criminal case. 

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there were serious reasons to apprehend that the case would not have justice in the hands of the present public prosecutor.

It was argued that the records show that when the petitioner made a case for further investigation, an objection to the same was considered by the trial court, but the petitioners were only given a copy of the objection after the hearing was over.

It was argued that the respondent was a local councillor, who had influence, and that an application was taken out for segregation of the case against him to be treated as a regular trial and not a trial under the POCSO act.

Hence, it was argued that the petitioners apprehended that the respondent was being protected by the authorities.

Counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments of the petitioners and submitted that the case was being conducted in a proper manner by the public prosecutor.

It was argued that the petitioner was only attempting to malign the private respondent.

Counsel for the State submitted that the State was neutral in the matter, and would abide by any order passed by the Court.

Court took note of a copy of the deposition handed over by the counsel for the respondent.

It noted that it was clear that the allegations were in the nature of POCSO charges, and that although the private respondent could not be castigated merely due to his status as a councillor, there was no basis for the authorities to seek a separate trial outside the POCSO Act.

It noted that only after the intervention of a coordinate bench, were the aforesaid attempts thwarted.

Accordingly, while reiterating that none of the observations in the case would be construed against the public prosecutor, the Court directed the State to change the prosecutor within 48 hours keeping in mind the urgency involved in the case.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 58