Back
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, HARISH KUMAR
Sushil Kumar Choudhary – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Ashutosh Kumar, J.—We have heard Sri Dinu Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Shahi, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Nadim Seraj, G.P.-5 for the State.
2. Though nobody appears today for Union of India but affidavit on its behalf has been filed, which supports the case of the petitioner.
3. The issue pertains to interpretation of Section 25(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which was incorporated in the Code in the year 2006 by Amendment Act 25 of 2005.
4. It provides that (1) the State Government may establish a Directorate of Prosecution consisting of a Director of Prosecution and many Deputy Directors of Prosecution as it thinks fit. (2) A person shall be eligible to be appointed as a Director of Prosecution or a Deputy Director of Prosecution only if he has been in practice as an Advocate for not less than ten years and such appointment shall be made with the concurrence of Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the High Court.
5. After about ten years of the incorporation of the aforenoted provision in the Code, the State of Bihar, in exercise of powers conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and Section 25(A) of the Cr.P.C.,
The court ruled that the appointment of the Director of Prosecution is not limited to the prosecution cadre, and the amendments to the rules do not violate the provisions of the Cr.P.C.
The Central Government is the competent authority to direct an appeal against inadequacy of sentence when the investigation is conducted by a central agency, as per Section 418 of BNSS.
Validity of notification will have to be tested with reference to constitutional provisions and Business rules and not by their form or substance.
Petitioner/Intervener with regard to violation of Rule 16(1) of Rules, 1958 and FR 56(d) and given a detailed finding that there is no violation of the said Rules, in view of the power of relaxation ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the establishment and appointments within the Jammu & Kashmir Prosecution Service were in accordance with the amended provisions of the Code o....
State governments cannot impose additional qualifications for Drug Inspectors as the field is occupied by Central legislation, rendering such state rules invalid.
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
