Back
RAMESH RANGANATHAN
Tera Chinnapa Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of A. P. rep. , by its Secretary to Government, Legislative Affairs – Respondent
The principle that a Public Prosecutor must act independently from the police is fundamental to ensuring a fair and impartial criminal justice system. The Prosecutor holds a quasi-judicial role, tasked with assisting the court and upholding justice without undue influence from law enforcement authorities (!) . This independence is crucial to prevent misuse and corruption, safeguarding the integrity of prosecutions and maintaining public confidence in the legal process (!) . The Prosecutor's duties include objectively evaluating evidence, presenting a truthful case, and avoiding any external pressures or directives from the police or other authorities (!) . Any interference or influence from the police or external bodies compromises the Prosecutor's impartiality and the fairness of the trial (!) . Therefore, the law mandates that Prosecutors exercise their powers independently, based solely on legal considerations, and not under the dictation or control of the police, to preserve the rule of law and ensure justice is truly served (!) .
1. Can the Advocate of the defacto-complainant, who issued a legal notice to the accused earlier, be appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor to prosecute him in the very same case? This is the question which arises for consideration in this Writ Petition.
2. The petitioner, the Managing Director of a bulk drug manufacturing company, contested the 2009 general elections from Nagarjuna Sagar Assembly Constituency and lost to the 3rd respondent. In his writ affidavit, the petitioner states that the 3rd respondent sent signals asking him to stay away from active politics; several malicious calls were made to him by anonymous callers; strangers were found lurking around his residence; he submitted representations in September, 2010 to the police seeking personal security; he filed W.P.No.20230 of 2012 questioning the action of the respondents in not providing him police security; the said writ petition was disposed of on 20.07.2012 directing the respondents to consider his representations as per G.O.Ms.No.655, Home, dated 13.03.1997; his request for personal security was rejected because of the pressure brought by the 3rd respondent; the personal secretary to the 3rd respond
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
