SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1985 Supreme(AP) 440

M.JAGANNADHA RAO
Dodda Brahmanandam – Appellant
Versus
State of A P rep by its Secretary for Law Department, Hyderabad – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The duties and role of a Public Prosecutor as a minister of justice, and its quasi-judicial position (!) (!) . - Whether an accused has locus standi to object to the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor under Section 24(8), CrPC on grounds of reasonable apprehension of bias (!) (!) (!) . - The propriety and legality of the Government’s appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor in this case, and the impact on fair trial and impartiality (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The principle that justice must be seen to be done and the consequences for appointments that may create bias (!) (!) . - The Court’s ultimate relief: allowing the writ petition and recommending a non-local SPS to avoid further complications (!) .

What is...

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?


M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition raises the question as to the duties of a public prosecutor and also a question as to the locus standi of an accused to object to the appointment of a particular person as special Public Prosecutor under Section 24 (8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, on the ground of reasonable apprehension of bias on the lattor s part.

( 2 ) THE petitioner, Dodda brahmanandam, is the accused standing trial in Sessions Case No. 92/1983 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge addanki, Prakasham District. He is questioning the appointment of the 2nd respondent herein, Sri M Ramaiah choudary, Advocate, Chirala as a Special public Prosecutor, under section 24 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to conduct prosecution in P R C No. 2/82 pending before the Munsif Magistrate, addanki, Prakasham District. The defacto complainant who is the petitioner s wife is now impleadedas the 3rd respondent in the writ petition.

( 3 ) IT is necessary to state the following facts: The petitioner and the 3rd respondent were married on 17-5-1973 On 25-11-1981 the 3rd respondent s father gave a report alleging that his son in-law (the writ petitioner) and the writ petiti



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top