Criminal Law
Mode of Citation- ILC-2016-SC-CRL-....
Get started with Indian Law Cases
Your password will be generated automatically and will be sent to your email-id provided in this form.
Full Name
Email ID
(this email-id will be treated as your User ID also)
Address
City
Mobile No
* Mobile No is required for verification of identity
 Bare Acts  | Legal Resources  | Lawyer Locater  | Articles  | Legal Dictionary  | Download Desktop Software  | Subscription   Home   |   E-Journal  |  Sign-In  | Contact Us  | Disclaimers

Criminal Law
 Search Tips
Criminal Law
Mode of Citation- ILC-2016-SC-CRL-....
Judgement Subject Index/Important Decision/Topic

ILC-2015-SC-CRL-Apr-29

K. Anbazhagan Vs. State of Karnataka and others

Head Note

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  - Section 2 , Section 24 , Section 25 , Section 301

Karnataka Law Officers (Appointments and Conditions of Service) Rules 1977, Rule 30 - Special Public Prosecutor - Appointment - At Appellate Stage - 4th respondent who was appointed a Special Public Prosecutor before the Special Court to conduct trial was not appointed by the State of Karnataka to argue the appeals before the High Court - Held that 4th respondent could not have appeared in appeal - Following conclusion in seriatim recorded : (a) The State of Tamil Nadu had no authority to appoint the 4th respondent, as the Public Prosecutor to argue the appeal. (b) It is the State of Karnataka which is the sole prosecuting agency and it was alone authorized to appoint the Public Prosecutor. (c) The appointment of 4th respondent, as the Public Prosecutor for the trial did not make him eligible to prosecute the appeal on behalf of prosecuting agency before the High Court. (d) The appointment of a Public Prosecutor, as envisaged under Section 24(1) CrPC in the High Court is different than the appointment of a Public Prosecutor for the District Courts; and that the Notification appointing the 4th respondent did not enable him to represent the State of Karnataka in appeal. (e) Though the appointment of the 4th respondent is bad in law, yet there is no justification to direct for de novo hearing of the appeal, regard being had to the duties of the appellate Judge, which have been enumerated, especially in a case pertaining to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; (f) The appellant as well as the State of Karnataka are entitled to file their written note submissions within the framework, as has been indicated in para 36. (g) The learned Appellate Judge, after receipt of judgment sent, shall peruse the same and be guided by the observations made therein while deciding the appeal.

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  - Section 2 , Section 24 , Section 25 , Section 301

Karnataka Law Officers (Appointments and Conditions of Service) Rules 1977, Rule 30 - Special Public Prosecutor - Appointment - At Appellate Stage - Whether "in charge of the case" would include an appeal arising out of the said case in the hierarchical system - Held that a Public Prosecutor who is appointed to conduct a case before the trial court cannot be deemed to be appointed for the purpose of appeal arising therefrom solely because of the language employed in Section 301(1) of CrPC - 4th respondent who was appointed a Special Public Prosecutor before the Special Court to conduct trial was not appointed by the State of Karnataka to argue the appeals before the High Court - He could not have appeared in the appeal.

Topic(s)-Special Public Prosecutor - Appointment - Jayalalithaa Case - Appointment bad in law







Full Judgement Body


     
@2015 Indian Law
Name
Email ID
Please Wait..