The legislative intent behind Section 25(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974, was to secure the independence of the prosecuting agency from the Police Department, and placing the Assistant Public Prosecutors under the disciplinary control of the Police officers would defeat this purpose.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the Government Order dated 15th March, 1975, placing the assistant Public prosecutors under the administrative and disciplinary control of the Superintendent of Police at the district level and the Inspector General of Police at the State level.

( 2 ) PRIOR to the enforcement of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Act II of 1974, the prosecuting agency in the District consisted of the Assistant Public Prosecutor, Public prosecutor and Senior public prosecutor. They were enrolled as members of the police force under Section 2 of the Police Act. For purposes of disciplinary and administrative concontrol they were members of the police force and liable to departmental trial and punishment under Section 7 of the Police Act for remissness and negligence in the discharge of their duties. Since they were members of the police force, the administrative and disciplinary control was being exercised over them by the Superintendent of Police in the District and by other higher police authorities, namely. Inspector General of Police and Deputy Inspector General of Police. The functions and duties of the Assistant Public prosecutors were prescribed by paragraphs 25 to 29 of Chapter III of the U. P. Police Regulations. Public prosecutors were appointed under Section 492 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 (Act No. II of 1974) was enacted by the Parliament which was enforced with effect from 1st April, 1974. Section 25 of the 1974 Act provided that no police officer shall be eligible for appointment as Assistant Public Prosecutor except in the circumstances enumerated in Subsection (3 ). After the enforcement of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. the State Government issued a notification dated 27th March, 1974, declaring that all the appointments of Senior Public Prosecutors and Assistants Public Prosecutors made under the Police Act, 1861, shall cease with effect from 1-4-1974, and the said posts in the police establishment shall stand abolished. The notification further repealed the provisions contained in the Police Regulations in so far as they contained provisions for the Public prosecutors. On the same day, the State Government in exercise of its powers under Article 309 of the Constitution framed and enforced the U. P. (Assistant Public Prosecutors) Appointment Rules, 1974. On 1st June, 1974, the Government issued orders transmitted through wireless message placing the public prosecutors under the District Magistrates for administrative and disciplinary control. Later, a formal Government order was issued on 15th June, 1974, which stated that the Senior Public prosecutors, Public Prosecutors and Assistant Public Prosecutors would be under the Administrative and disciplinary control of the District Magistrate at the District level. In pursuance of that policy, another Government Order was issued on 21st August. 1974, directing that the character roll and other service records of the Public Prosecutors should be transferred by the Police Department to the District Magistrates.

( 3 ) LATER on. the State Government had a second thought and it reversed its earlier decision and snide an order on 15th March, 1975, resenting the Government order dated 15th June 1974, and directing that henceforth the Public Prosecutors. Senior Public Prosecutors and Assistant Public Prosecutors shall be under the control of Superintendent of Police a the District level and the Inspector General of Police at the State level, for purposes of administrative and disciplinary matters. The petitioners are Assistant Public Prosecutors, After the issue of the notification dated 27th March, 1974, and the enforcement of the Appointment Rules they ceased to be officers of the Police Department and they opted for the new service created under the said Appointment Rules and they have been subject to the administrative and disciplinary contro