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

1981 Supreme(Ker) 237

K.K.NARENDRAN, KADER
STATE OF KERALA – Appellant
Versus
KRISHNAN – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. These State appeals against acquittal, presented by the Additional Advocate General at a time when admittedly there was no Public Prosecutor appointed for the High Court, have come up for grant of leave under S.378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for short the Code. The question is whether the State Government can direct the Advocate General or the Additional Advocate General to present an appeal under S.378(1) of the Code without appointing them as Public Prosecutors under S 24(1), in view of Art.165 of the Constitution of India and the rules framed by the Government under clauses (2) and (3) of Art.165 of the Constitution as per notification dated 1st November, 1956

2. S.378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 reads:

"378. Appeal in case of acquittal. (1) Save as otherwise provided in subsection (2) and subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (5), the State Government may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order of acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court or an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in revision."

S. 24(1) of the Code reads:

"




























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