MADAN B.LOKUR, R.BANUMATHI
K. Anbazhagan – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Judgment
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The question for consideration is whether Mr. G. Bhavani Singh appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor in the trial of the case against Ms. Jayalalithaa and other accused persons in the Special Court in Bengaluru was entitled to represent the prosecution in the appeals filed in the Karnataka High Court by the accused persons against their conviction.
3. My answer to this question is in the negative on an appreciation of earlier directions given by this court, on a reading of the notification appointing Mr. Bhavani Singh as a Special Public Prosecutor and on an interpretation of Sections 24, 25, 25-A and 301(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The result is that the hearing of the appeals in the High Court stands vitiated, since the prosecution was not represented by an authorized person. The appeals will have to be heard afresh by the High Court with the prosecution represented by a Public Prosecutor appointed under Section 24(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 or a Special Public Prosecutor appointed by the State of
K. Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police
J. Jayalalitha v. Union of India
B.R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu
K. Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police
J. Jayalalithaa v. State of Karnataka
Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal v. State of Tamil Nadu
Mansoor v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Gokaraju Rangaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh
K. Anbazhagan v. Supdt. of Police
J. Jayalalithaa v. State of Karnataka
Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal @ Subramaniam v. State of Tamil Nadu
Bhimappa Bassappa Bhu Sannavar v. Laxman Shivarayappa Samagouda
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.