Case Title: R Suresh Kumar v The Principal Secretary to Government
Case No: W.P.(MD)No.29723 of 2023
Decided on: 19th December, 2023
CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SUNDAR and THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL
Facts of the Case
In district courts under the jurisdiction of Madurai, advocate Suresh Kumar contested the appointment of Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors. Kumar questioned the validity of the appointments, claiming that the government was not following the procedure for selecting cadre public prosecutors and additional public prosecutors. In response, the State Public Prosecutor argued that State Governments are not required to appoint Public Prosecutors or Additional Public Prosecutors solely from the cadre under the Code of Criminal Procedure, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in K.J. John v. State of Kerala.
Furthermore, the appointment of Special Public Prosecutors/Exclusive Public Prosecutors is made possible by provisions found in acts like the POCSO Act and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The prosecutor focused on Section 24(8) of the CrPC, which emphasises the Central and State Governments’ authority to designate Public Prosecutors for particular cases who have ten years of experience at the bar and the clause that allows victims to designate an advocate to support the prosecution.
Legal Provisions
The case concerns the interpretation of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) Section 24(8) and the Supreme Court’s ruling in K.J. John v. State of Kerala, which held that State Governments were not required to appoint prosecutors solely from the cadre, citing statutes such as the POCSO Act and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act that provided for Special Public Prosecutors.
Issues
Is the State Government’s authority to appoint Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors under Section 24(6A) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), beyond the regular cadre, legally valid and in accordance with the pertinent provisions of the CrPC?
Courts analysis and decision
Under Section 24(6A) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), the has upheld the State Government’s right to choose Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors. The court stated, “We conclude by writing that the powers of the State Government to appoint Public Prosecutors or Additional Public Prosecutors under sub-section (6-A) of Section 24 of Cr.P.C. is de hors the regular cadre and it can be resorted to,” emphasising that this power extends beyond the regular cadre and allows the appointment of special Public Prosecutors for specific cases.
The court emphasized the sub-section 6A of the Tamil Nadu modification to Section 24 of the CrPC, which gave the State Government specific authority to appoint Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors outside of the normal cadre. The court maintained the State’s jurisdiction while emphasising the need to carefully follow Section 24 of the CrPC’s sub-sections (4) and (5). As a result, the court declared that the plea was without merit and that the petition was therefore unjustified.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Rupika Goundla
