Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mrs. Neelima Sadanand Vartak, an Additional Public Prosecutor in Pune District since 1986, challenged the notification dated 1st June 2004 appointing respondent No.8 as Public Prosecutor for Pune District for three years. The petitioner contended that the appointment violated Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which requires consultation with the Advocate General and consideration of eligible Additional Public Prosecutors. The State argued that the appointment was made after due consideration and that the Advocate General was consulted. However, the court found that the Advocate General was not consulted before issuing the notification, and the petitioner, being an eligible Additional Public Prosecutor, was not considered. The court held that the consultation with the Advocate General is mandatory and must be meaningful, and that eligible Additional Public Prosecutors must be considered for appointment. The court quashed the notification and directed the State to make a fresh appointment in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Appointment of Public Prosecutor - Section 24 CrPC - Consultation with Advocate General - The appointment of a Public Prosecutor for a district must be made in consultation with the Advocate General as per Section 24(4) CrPC. The court held that the consultation must be meaningful and not a mere formality. In this case, the Advocate General was not consulted before issuing the notification, rendering the appointment invalid. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Procedure - Appointment of Public Prosecutor - Section 24 CrPC - Consideration of Additional Public Prosecutors - Section 24(5) CrPC requires that the Public Prosecutor be appointed from among persons who have been in practice as advocates for not less than seven years, and the court held that eligible Additional Public Prosecutors must be considered for appointment. The petitioner, an Additional Public Prosecutor with 18 years of experience, was not considered, violating the statutory scheme. (Paras 2-12) C) Criminal Procedure - Appointment of Public Prosecutor - Section 24 CrPC - Validity of Notification - The notification dated 1st June 2004 appointing respondent No.8 as Public Prosecutor was quashed as it was issued without following the mandatory procedure under Section 24 CrPC, including consultation with the Advocate General and consideration of eligible candidates. (Paras 1-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointment of respondent No.8 as Public Prosecutor for Pune District by notification dated 1st June 2004 is valid under Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, particularly regarding consultation with the Advocate General and consideration of eligible Additional Public Prosecutors.
Final Decision
The court quashed the notification dated 1st June 2004 appointing respondent No.8 as Public Prosecutor for Pune District and directed the State to make a fresh appointment in accordance with Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Law Points
- Appointment of Public Prosecutor must comply with Section 24 CrPC
- consultation with Advocate General mandatory
- eligible Additional Public Prosecutors must be considered
- notification without proper consultation is invalid
