The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.929 of 2006 of Rajendranagar Police Station, Ranga Reddy District, registered for the offences under Sections 409 and 468 of IPC.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he forged his last pay certificate as if it was issued by the Assistant Research Officer. In the complaint, it is mentioned that an enquiry was conducted in this connection against the petitioner and the enquiry report discloses that the signature on the last pay certificate is tallying with that of the petitioner which was issued by a mazdoor by name Habeebuddin. As per the Government instructions, a complaint was lodged with the police for the offence of creating a false last pay certificate and drawing salary on that basis.

3. It was mentioned in the complaint that the matter was referred to the Public Prosecutor of Rangareddy District for his opinion and the Public Prosecutor gave his opinion on 14-12-2004 mentioning that it is a fit matter to file a case against the petitioner.

4. The petitioner filed the present Application by contending that in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in R.SARALA v. T.S.VELU AND OTHERS(1) filing of the case after consulting the Public Prosecutor is abuse of process of law, therefore, it is liable to be quashed.

5. In view of the circumstances, the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution against the petitioner is liable to be quashed on the ground that on the basis of the opinion of Public Prosecutor, the case has been filed.”

6. The petitioner contended that under Section 24 of Cr.P.C., the Public Prosecutors are appointed for conducting prosecution on behalf of the Central or State Government and he is not supposed to interfere with the investigation of the police and give opinion as he likes and as the Public Prosecutor gave opinion in this case, the prosecution is liable to be quashed.

7. In R.SARALA’s case (1 supra), the Supreme Court considered the role of the public prosecutors.

In the above case, there was a direction by the High Court to the Investigating Officer to take back the case from the Court directing to consult the Public Prosecutor and submit fresh charge sheet in tune with his opinion. The Supreme Court held that:

2. Investigation and prosecution are two different facets in the administration of criminal justice. The role of Public Prosecutor is inside the Court, whereas investigation is outside the Court. Normally the role of Public Prosecutor commences after investigating agency presents the case in the Court on culmination of investigation. Its exception is that Public Prosecutor may have to deal with bail applications moved by the parties concerned at any stage. Involving the Public Prosecutor in investigation is unjudicious as well as pernicious in law. At any rate no investigating agency can be compelled to seek opinion of a Public Prosecutor under the orders of Court. Here is a case wherein the Investigation Officer concerned is directed by the High Court to take back the case from the Court whereat it was laid by him after completing the investigation and he is further directed to consult the Public Prosecutor and submit a fresh charge-sheet in tune with the opinion of the Public Prosecutor. Is such a course permissible in law?

8. The question here is not simply whether an Investigating Officer, on his own volition or on his own initiative, can discuss with the Public Prosecutor or any legal talent, for the purpose of forming his opinion as to the report to be laid in the Court. Had that been the question involved in this case it would be unnecessary to vex our mind because it is always open to any officer, including any Investigating Officer, to get the best legal opinion on any legal aspect concerning the preparation of any report. But the real question is, should the High Court direct the Investigating Officer to take opinion of the Public Prosecutor for filing the charge-sheet.

9. Investigation is defined in Section 2(