2008 (7) TMI 961 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether Public Prosecutor having requisite qualifications as prescribed under sub-section (8) of Section 24 of Cr.P.C. is a lawyer in the State of Pondicherry or any other State?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction to appoint Public Prosecutors.
2. Authority of the State of Tamil Nadu to appoint Public Prosecutors for a case transferred to Pondicherry.
3. Applicability of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
4. Ensuring a fair trial for the accused.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction to appoint Public Prosecutors:
The appellant challenged the appointment of Public Prosecutors by the State of Tamil Nadu for a case transferred to Pondicherry. The court examined the provisions of Chapter II of the Cr.P.C., particularly Section 24, which deals with the appointment of Public Prosecutors. It was concluded that the State Government has the power to appoint Public Prosecutors for cases within its jurisdiction. Once a case is transferred to another state, the transferor state no longer has control over the prosecution in the transferee state.

2. Authority of the State of Tamil Nadu to appoint Public Prosecutors for a case transferred to Pondicherry:
The appellant contended that the State of Tamil Nadu had no right to appoint Public Prosecutors for a case pending in Pondicherry. The court held that the State of Tamil Nadu could not appoint Public Prosecutors for cases outside its jurisdiction. The power to appoint Public Prosecutors for the transferred case lies with the State of Pondicherry, as per Section 24 of the Cr.P.C.

3. Applicability of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.):
Section 24 of the Cr.P.C. outlines the procedure for appointing Public Prosecutors. The court emphasized that the power to appoint Public Prosecutors for a district or sessions division rests with the state government where the trial is conducted. In this case, since the trial was transferred to Pondicherry, the State of Pondicherry has the authority to appoint Public Prosecutors.

4. Ensuring a fair trial for the accused:
The transfer of the case from Tamil Nadu to Pondicherry was based on the apprehension that the accused would not receive a fair trial in Tamil Nadu. The court noted that the role of the Public Prosecutor is crucial in ensuring a fair trial. Therefore, allowing the State of Tamil Nadu to appoint Public Prosecutors for a case in Pondicherry would undermine the purpose of the transfer. The court directed that the State of Pondicherry appoint the Public Prosecutor to ensure impartiality and fairness in the trial.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court, directing that the State of Pondicherry appoint the Public Prosecutor for the case. The expenses for conducting the trial, including the Advocate fees, are to be borne by the State of Tamil Nadu. The appeal was allowed to the extent indicated, ensuring that the prosecution of the case continues in accordance with the law under the jurisdiction of Pondicherry.