Special public prosecutor in Jiah Khan case: CBI to move Bombay HC against Maha govt appointment

The tussle began when advocate Dinesh Tiwari, who represented Jiah’s mother Rabia Khan in the High Court, was appointed the SPP to represent the state in the trial court. A special court had earlier rejected the challenge to Tiwari’s appointment.

The state law and judiciary department issued a notification regarding Tiwari’s appointment on November 6, 2015, which was a month before the CBI filed its supplementary chargesheet on December 9, 2015.

[related-post]

The notification says, “Government of Maharashtra appoints Advocate Shri Dinesh Tiwari as SPP for conducting the case bearing number 83/2014 pending before Sessions Court Mumbai which is arising out of CR NO 204/ 2013.”

Prior to the CBI chargesheet, the Mumbai Police Crime Branch had carried out the investigation and filed its chargesheet. The HC had, on a petition filed by Rabia, who was dissatisfied with the police’s investigation, directed the CBI to take over the investigation.

The CBI, which has been opposing the state’s decision, will now move the HC. “We will be contesting the appointment of the SPP by way of a review petition now that Delhi has cleared the papers. The lawyer appeared for the mother, who recommended his name to the state and deposited Rs 50,000 by way of demand draft. It is surprising that he had appeared for Rabia, but was appointed as the SPP. We want our own prosecutor as the investigation was carried out by the CBI,” sources in the CBI said.

According to Rule 22 of the Maharashtra Law Officers (appointment conditions of service and remuneration) Rules 1984, “If in any case, civil or criminal, a request is made by any private party, interested in the case, for the appointment of its own advocate as a special counsel or special public prosecutor, as the case may be, on the condition that the payment of fees of such advocate will be borne by that party, the Remembrancer of Legal Affairs may, after considering such case on merits, appoint such advocate for that particular case or cases.”

However, the CBI officials have questioned whether a lawyer who has represented the party in a case can be made a special public prosecutor in the same case. In such cases, generally, the private party makes a representation to the state home department, following which it is forwarded to the law and judiciary department that issues a notification.

The Jiah Khan case has seen unusual twists and turns. The investigation was first carried out by the Mumbai Police, who filed a chargesheet against Jiah’s former actor boyfriend Sooraj Pancholi for abetment of suicide. Rabia subsequently pressed for a CBI probe asserting a harsher punishment for Pancholi, alleging murder.

The CBI, thereafter, filed its chargesheet reiterating the charge of abetment of suicide against Pancholi. The mother yet again moved the High Court seeking investigation by a special investigation team.

Senior officials in the home department said the procedure for appointments had been followed. “It is done as per the rules. The appointment in this case has been done by the state. The case, however, is now with the High Court. Therefore, we will take appropriate steps after the case is heard,” said a senior source in the home department.

Tiwari, for his part, denies the CBI’s grounds, saying the central investigation agency is fighting a “proxy war”. The appointment, he points out, is permissible in the rules. “It was Rabia who had written to the CBI that the case be conducted by Dinesh Tiwari. They (CBI) have nothing to lose. Are they fighting a proxy war on behalf of the accused? By any stretch of imagination, it is Sooraj who should be affected by my appointment. It is the mother of the victim wanting it; how can anyone have a problem,” Tiwari told The Indian Express.