JUDGMENT

KASLIWAL, J.:- As identical questions of law are involved in both the above cases, they are disposed of by one single order.

2. Civil Appeal No. 1101 of 1981 is directed against the judgment of High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dated October 8,1980. The High Court has granted a certificate under Article 133(l) of the Constitution of India certifying that the case involved a substantial question of law of general importance consisting the interpretation of Sub Section (6) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

3. The Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has been filed by the Uttar Pradesh Public Prosecutors Association consisting the membership of Assistant Public Prosecutors, including Prosecuting Officers, Senior Prosecuting Officers, Deputy Director of Prosecution serving under the Government of Uttar Pradesh. Petitioner No. 2 is the President of the Association. In both the cases the controversy raised is that there exists a regular cadre of Prosecuting Officers and as such the State Government is bound to appoint Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors only from among the persons constituting such cadre in view of S. 24(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973.

4. In order to appreciate the controversy, it would be necessary to give the background of the law and rules relating to the appointment of public prosecutors. Sections 24 and 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 correspond to Section 492 of the Old Code and deal with the appointment of Public Prosecutors, Additional Public Prosecutors, Special Public Prosecutors and Assistant Public Prosecutors. Under the Old Code there could be any number of Public Prosecutors appointed by the Central Government or by the State Government or by the District Magistrate or by the Sub Divisional Magistrate subject to the control of the District Magistrate. Under Section 495 of the Old Code any Magistrate enquiring into or trying a case could permit the prosecution to be conducted by any person who may do so personally or by a pleader. In the courts of Magistrates the prosecution was conducted generally by Police Officers or by persons recruited from the Bar styled as Police Prosecutors or Assistant Public Prosecutors all of whom worked Under the directions of the Police Department. Moreover, no qualification was laid down in the old Code for the Advocates being appointed as Public Prosecutors. In Section 24 of the new Code for the first time such detailed provisions have been made. In Section 24 as originally framed there were only two categories of public prosecutor (1) those appointed by the Central or State Government under this Section, and (2) those engaged by the Public Prosecutor to act under his own direction, vide Section 2(U). Provision was also for the first time made for appointment of Public Prosecutor in the High Court for conducting any prosecution in the said court on behalf of the Central Government or the State Government by the concerned Government after consultation with the High Court. The appointment of Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor of the State Government in every District could be made only from the panel of names of the persons prepared by the District Magistrate in consultation with the Sessions Judge. It was for the first time provided that in the case of Public Prosecutor and the Additional Public Prosecutor he should be an Advocate of not less than seven years standing at the Bar and in the case of Special Public Prosecutor the standing at the Bar should not be less than 10 years.

5. The original Section 24 has been amended by the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act of 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act of 1978) w.e.f. 18th December, 1978 and a new Section 24 has been substituted for the original Section 24. It would be necessary to reproduce Section 24 as it stood in the original Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as well as Section 24 which stood after the Crimina