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

1985 Supreme(Del) 225

H.L.ANAND
AJAY KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.G.SINGH, J.U.Khan, MADAN BHATIA, P.P.MALHOTRA, S.T.SINGH, Sima Mehra

H. L. ANAND,j.

( 1 ) THE petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by Ajay Kumar, raises the ques- tion as to the validity and propriety of appointment of an Advocate of an aggreived party as a Special Public Prosecutor in a Criminal trial. The following facts provide the backdrop.

( 2 ) AJAY Kumar, petitioner and certain other persons are facing trial in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge on charges, inter alia, of murder of Mukesh on October 6, 1982 in the Palika Bazar Market. The aggrieved party who are said to be "rich, well-connected and influential", had engaged Bawa Gurcharan Singh, an eminent criminal lawyer, as their counsel to oppose the plea of the accused persons for bail as also to assist the prosecution in the conduct of the eventual trial. By a notification of May 5, 1983, Delhi Administration appointed Bawa Gurcharan Singh aforesaid as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the case on behalf of. Delhi Administration at a professional "fee of Re. II- only as accepted by him, in his letter of April 18, 1983". One of the accused Sudhir Kumar was discharged by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. The Administration challenged the order in thi

























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