Case Note & Summary
The case involved appeals against the appointment of Special Public Prosecutors and Assistant Public Prosecutors by the State of Maharashtra, which were challenged on the grounds that such appointments should not be made to support private transactions. The appellants were facing prosecution for various charges under the Indian Penal Code and contended that the Code of Criminal Procedure conferred a special status on public prosecutors, which was undermined by allowing private parties to pay for their services. The High Court had upheld the appointments, leading to these appeals. The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly Sections 24 and 25, which govern the appointment of public prosecutors and assistant public prosecutors. The court emphasized that the Remembrancer of Legal Affairs should scrutinize requests for such appointments and that the public prosecutor's role is to represent the State's interest, not private grievances. The court found that allowing private payment for public prosecutors could lead to a conflict of interest and a travesty of justice. It ruled that while there may be exceptional cases where private payment is permissible, the general rule should be that public prosecutors are funded by the State. The court ultimately allowed the appeals, invalidated Rule 22 of the Maharashtra Rules, and directed the Remembrancer of Legal Affairs to reassess the necessity of appointing public prosecutors in the cases at hand, determining the source of their remuneration. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Appointment of Public Prosecutors - Validity of appointments made by State Government - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 24(8), 25(1) - The court held that the Remembrancer of Legal Affairs must decide on the necessity of appointing Special Public Prosecutors or Assistant Public Prosecutors and who should bear the costs, emphasizing that appointments should not be made to support private transactions. The court found Rule 22 of the Maharashtra Rules invalid and required modification by the State Government (Paras 876-878).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointment of Special Public Prosecutors and Assistant Public Prosecutors by the State at the cost of private complainants is valid.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, invalidated Rule 22 of the Maharashtra Rules, and directed the Remembrancer of Legal Affairs to reassess the necessity of appointing public prosecutors in the cases at hand, determining the source of their remuneration. No costs were awarded.
Law Points
- Appointment of Special Public Prosecutors
- Appointment of Assistant Public Prosecutors
- Remuneration from private sources
- Role of Remembrancer of Legal Affairs
- Guidelines for appointment of prosecutors
