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

1996 Supreme(P&H) 1748

S.S.MALTE
Hukam Chand – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent


Judgment

S.S.Malte, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed against the order by which the Addl. Session Judge, Kaithal has passed the order by which one R.C. Gugnani, Advocate appearing for the complainant was allowed to conduct the case under the supervision, guidance and control of the Public Prosecutor while the Public Prosecutor retaining control over the proceedings. The brief question would be whether such an order is in accordance with the provision of Sections 301 and 302 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

2. In order to appreciate the point involved in this case, it would be necessary to bear in mind that the appointment of a public prosecutor is made as per Section 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It provides that the State may appoint Public Prosecutor and one or more Additional Public Prosecutors for conducting the cases in the Court. In the context of point raised in this case, it is pertinent to note that clause 8 of Section 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers the Government to appoint a practicing lawyer having not less than 10 years practice, as a special public prosecutor for the purpose of conducting a case or class of cases. This provision clearly indic




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