Judgment

RANGANATH MISRA, J.-Special leave granted in each of the three cases.

2. A common question arising for consideration in these appeals is as to the justifiability of the appointment by the State of Special Public Prosecutors and Assistant Public Prosecutors under Sections 24 and 25 respectively of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 at the cost of the private complainants.

3. In criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Cri) No. 3027 of 1986 the appellants are facing prosecution for charges of forgery and cheating before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court. Esplanade, Bombay. On December 4, 1979 the Government of Maharashtra appointed an Assistant Public Prosecutor for conducting the said case for the prosecution in exercise of powers under Section 25(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the connected criminal appeal [arising out of SLP (Cri) No. 3048 of 1986] the appellant is accused of an offence punishable under Section 409 read with Sections 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and is facing his trial in the court of the same Metropolitan Magistrate. On August 3, 1983, the State of Maharashtra in exercise of powers under Section 24(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has appointed two advocates as Special Public Prosecutors for conducting the prosecution. In the other connected criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Cri) No. 703 of 1987 the appellants are being tried for offences punishable under Sections 506(ii), 337, 354, 504, 498-A, read with Sections 114 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code in the court of the same Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaum, Bombay. By notifications dated December 4, 1979, August 3, 1983 and July 17, 1985, the Government of Maharashtra in exercise of powers under Section 24(8) of the Code appointed two advocates as Special Public Prosecutors for conducting the prosecution. The notifications were assailed in a group of writ petitions before the Bombay High Court and a Division Bench of that court by a common judgment dated July 2, 1986, rejected the writ petitions and upheld the appointments. That common judgment of the High Court is assailed in this batch of appeals. Since common questions have been raised and argued at a time, this judgment shall dispose of all the three appeals.

4. The impugned appointments have been made either in exercise of powers under Section 24 or Section 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973. Section 24 deals with Public Prosecutors while Section 25 makes provisions for Assistant Public Prosecutors. While sub-section (1) of Section 24 enables the Central Government or the State Government to appoint a Public Prosecutor or an Additional Public Prosecutor for the purposes of High Courts, sub-section (2) makes provision for appointment of one or more Public Prosecutors for the purposes of conducting of cases in any district or local area and sub-sections (4), (5), (6) and (7) deal with the modality of such appointments, sub-section (8) provides :

The Central Government or the State Government may appoint, for the purposes of any case or class of cases, a person who has been in practice as an advocate for not less than ten years as a Special Public Prosecutor.

Section 25 deals with the appointment of Assistant Public Prosecutors. Sub-section (1) provides :

The State Government shall appoint in every district one or more Assistant Public Prosecutors for conducting prosecutions in the Courts of Magistrates.

The provisions contained in these two sections in the Code of 1973 correspond to Section 492 of the old Code which dealt with the appointment of Public Prosecutors.

5. Challenge by the appellants to the notifications in question is on the ground that the Code confers a special status on the Public Prosecutor ; wherever it has been considered necessary, law has prescribed the interest to be represented by the Public Prosecutor and it would not be in proper exercise of power by the State Government to make appointment of a Special Public Pros