9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 961X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HI SWAMIGAL (II), T.N. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (2005) 8 SCC 771 considered the matter in detail and reached the following conclusion in paragraph 24 of the judgment :- Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the material on record, we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner and other co-accused of the case have a reasonable apprehension that they will not get justice in the State of Tamil Nadu. We would like to clarify here that we are casting no reflection on the district judiciary in the State of Tamil Nadu. But it is the actions of the prosecuting agency and the State machinery, which are responsible for creating a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner and other co-accused that they will not get justice if the trial is held in any place inside the State of Tamil Nadu. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the interest of justice requires that the trial may be transferred to a place outside the State of Tamil Nadu. Thus, the Sessions Case No. 197/2005, pending before the Principal Sessions Judge, Chinglepet, was transferred to the court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pondicherry and was numbered as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s well as the High Court by which the Special Public Prosecutor and Additional Special Public Prosecutors were appointed to conduct the trial of the case. 6. We heard the counsel for the appellant as well as counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu. The counsel for the appellant contended that the appointment of the Public Prosecutor is to be made by the State as per the procedure prescribed under Section 24 of Cr.P.C. It is pointed out that the Government of Pondicherry has total authority to appoint a Public Prosecutor or Additional Prosecutor or a Special Public Prosecutor to conduct a criminal case pending before any of the Sessions divisions of the State of Pondicherry which was formerly a Union Territory, now being a separate State and the Tamil Nadu Government has no right to appoint any prosecutor - either a Public Prosecutor or a Special Public Prosecutor - to conduct a trial of a case pending before the Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry. The counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that this court while ordering the case transfer to the State of Pondicherry had not specifically directed that trial should be conducted by the prosecutor appointed by the Gove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor for conducting any prosecution, appeal or other proceedings on behalf of the Central Government or State Government in the High Court. Sub-section (3) of Section 24 requires that for every district, the State Government shall appoint a Public Prosecutor and one or more Additional Public Prosecutors. Sub-sections (3) to (7) deal with appointment of Public Prosecutor, Additional Public Prosecutor for the district. The power of appointment is given to the State Government and such appointment should be from a panel of names prepared by the District Magistrate in consultation with the Sessions Judge. Sub-section (7) of Section 24 provides that a person shall be eligible to be appointed as a Public Prosecutor or as an Additional Public Prosecutor under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub- section (3) or sub-section (6) only if he has been in practice as an advocate for not less than seven years. A conjoint reading of all these provisions would clearly show that the State Government has the power of appointment of Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor for each district or court of Sessions in the sessions division in the State to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24 of the Cr.P.C. 9. The purpose of transfer of the criminal case from one State to another is to ensure fair trial to the accused. In this case, the main ground on which the transfer of the sessions case was ordered from the Sessions court of Chinglepet in Tamil Nadu to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, was that the action of the prosecution agency had created a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the accused-appellant that he would not get justice if the trial was held in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Public Prosecutor plays a key role during trail of a Sessions case. Though the Sessions Judge has got a supervising control over the entire trial of the case, it is the Public Prosecutor who decides who are the witnesses to be examined on the side of the prosecution and which witness is to be given up, or which witness is to be recalled for further examination. For proper conduct of a criminal case the Public Prosecutor plays a vital role. It may also be noticed herein that under Section 225 of the Cr.P.C. during every trial before the court of Sessions, the prosecution shall be conducted by the Public Prosecutor and as regards withdrawal also, the Public ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
