( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against a judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3. 000. 00 or in default to further imprisonment for two years Before we deal with the merits of the appeal, it is necessary to notice the preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the State. The objection was that Mr. I. U. Khan Advocate appearing for the accused being an Addl. Public Prosecutor could not appear for the accused in view of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court, M. L. Jain, J. in the case of Lt. Col. K. 0. Sud v. S. C. Gudimani, Criminal Revision No. 224 of 1980 decided on February 13, 1981=vol. 20 DLT (1981) (SN) 30. Asimilar objection was taken before the learned Single Judge in that case. In order to decide that objection the learned Judge posed the following three questions :

(1) Whether a Public Prosecutor or an Addl. Public Prosecutor or a panel lawyer for that matter can appear, against the State?

(2) Whether it is permissible to the State or the Administration to permit a Public Prosecutor or an Addl.