http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: MUKUL DALAL ETC. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT04/05/1988

BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH PATHAK, R.S. (CJ)

CITATION:  1988 SCR  (3) 868        1988 SCC  (3) 144  JT 1988 (2)   280        1988 SCALE  (1)909

ACT:      Code  of   Criminal  Procedure,   1973-Section   24(8)- Appointment of Special Public Prosecutors and Section 25(1)- Appointment  of   Assistant  Public   Prosecutors-By   State Government to  support private  transaction and provision of remuneration   from   private   source-Whether   valid   and justified, Held-Duty  cast on  Remembrancer of Legal Affairs of State  Government to  decide whether  services of Special Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor be provided in a particular case and who should bear their expenses.      Rules for  the Conduct  of the  Legal  Affairs  of  the Government,  1984-Rule   22-Validity  of.   Held-Bad-Require proper modification by State Government.

HEADNOTE:      The appellants  were  facing  prosecution  for  several charges under  the Indian Penal Code in different trials. By different notifications  the State  of Maharashtra appointed some advocates  as Assistant  Public Prosecutor  and Special Public Prosecutors in exercise of powers under section 25(1) and 24(8)  respectively of  the Code  of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for  conducting the prosecution. The notifications were challenged in  a group  of writ  petitions before  the  High Court. A  Division Bench  of the  High  Court  by  a  common judgment negatived  the plea  advanced  by  the  appellants, rejected the  writ petitions  and upheld  the  appointments. Hence  these   appeals  by  special  leave.  The  appellants contended that  the Code  confers a  special status  on  the public prosecutor whenever it has been considered necessary, law has  prescribed the  interest to  be represented  by the public prosecutor  and it would not be in proper exercise of power by  the State  Government to  make  appointment  of  a Special Public  Prosecutor to  support a private transaction and provide for his remuneration from private source.      Allowing the appeals this Court, ^      HELD: In  most of the States, the Remembrancer of Legal Affairs  looks   after  the   State  litigations.  He  is  a responsible officer and normally 869 with  judicial  experience.  When  an  application  for  the services of  a Special  Public Prosecutor  or  an  Assistant

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

Public Prosecutor is made in a given case the power would be vested in  him to  examine the facts and take decision as to whether the  case merits the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor or  an Assistant  Public Prosecutor. It would not be appropriate  to accept  the  position  that  whenever  an application is  made it  should be  allowed  and  a  Special Public Prosecutor  should be  appointed would be contrary to the spirit  of the  scheme of  the Code.  There may be cases where a  powerful complainant may have begun a proceeding to victimize his opponent. If in such a case the State concedes to  the   request  for   appointment  of  a  Special  Public Prosecutor there  will be  traversity  of  justice.  Without screening on  the basis  of guidelines  prescribed or  to be prescribed, the  services of  a  Special  Public  Prosecutor should not  be made  available to a private complainant. The primacy given  to the  Public Prosecutor under the scheme of the Code  has a social purpose and the same would be lost if the procedure  adopted by  Rule 22  of Maharashtra  Rules is accepted or  what the  High Court  has indicated is adopted. [876F-H;877A-B]      Rule 22  of the  Maharashtra Rules is bad and the State Government should  properly  modify  the  same  keeping  our conclusions in view. [877H;878A]      The next  question would  be whether the Special Public Prosecutor should  be permitted  to be  paid by  the private complainant.  The   Remembrancer  of  Legal  Affairs  should scrutinise every  request, keeping a prescribed guideline in view and  decide in  which  cases  such  request  should  be accepted, keeping the facts of such case in view. Ordinarily the Special  Public Prosecutor  should be  paid out  of  the State funds  even when  he appears  in support  of a private complainant but  there may  be some  special case  where the Special Public  Prosecutor’s remuneration  may be  collected from the  private source.  In such  cases  the  fees  should either be deposited in advance or paid to a prescribed State agency  from  where  the  Special  Public  Prosecutor  could collect the same. [877D,F-H]      In the instant cases the Rememberancer of Legal Affairs of the  Maharashtra Government will now decide as to whether the services  of  a  Special  Public  Prosecutor,  a  Public Prosecutor or  an  Assistant  Public  Prosecutor  should  be provided and  in case  he comes  to the conclusion that such provision should be made, he should decide as to whether the State Administration  should pay  for such Public Prosecutor or the private complainant should bear the same. [878A-B] 870      K.C. Sood  v. S.C.  Gudimani, [1981] Crl. L.J. Vol. II, 1779;P.G. Narayanankutty v. State of Kerala and Ors., [1982] Crl. L.J.  Vol. 88,  2085 and  Dilipbhai Chhotalal  Dave  v. State of  Gujarat &  Ors., [1971]  Guj. L.R.  Vol. 12,  999, referred to.

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Criminal  Appeal  No. 305,306 & 307 of 1988.      From the Judgment and Order dated 2nd/3rd July, 1986 of the High  Court of  Bombay in Criminal application No. 1127, 527 and 866 of 1985.      S.B. Bhasme,  M.C. Bhandare, Dilip Pillai, P.K. Pillai, T. Sridharan and Amit Desai for the appellants.      V.M.  Tarkunde,   R.K.  Garg,   M.S.  Rao,  Y.R.  Naik, Rajadyaka, S.B.  Jaisingha, Ms. R. Jethmalani, C. Ramesh and Ashok Sharma for the Respondents.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

    V.S. Desai, G.B. Sathe, A.M. Khanwilkar and A.S. Bhasme for the State of Maharashtra.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      RANGANATH MISRA,  J. Special  Leave granted  in each of the three cases.      A common  questions arising  for consideration in these appeals is  as to  the justifiability  of the appointment by the State of Special Public Prosecutors and Assistant Public Prosecutors under  sections 24  and 25  respectively of  the Code of  Criminal Procedure, 1973 at the cost of the private complainants.      In Criminal Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl) No. 3027 of 1986 the appellants are facing prosecution for charges of forgery   and   cheating   before   the   Additional   Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,  37th Court,  Esplanade, Bombay. On 4th  of   December,  1979   the  Government  of  Maharashtra appointed as  Assistant Public Prosecutor for conducting the said case  for the  prosecution in  exercise of powers under section 25(1)  of the  Code of  Criminal Procedure.  In  the connected Criminal  Appeal arising  out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3048  of  1986  the  appellant  is  accused  of  an  offence punishable under section 409 read with sections 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and is facing his trial in the 871 court of the same Metropolitan Magistrate. On 3rd of August, 1983, the  State of  Maharashtra in exercise of powers under section  24(8)   of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  has appointed two  advocates as  Special Public  Prosecutors for conducting the  prosecution. In the other connected Criminal Appeal arising  out of  S.L.P. (Crl.)  No, 703  of 1987  the appellants are  being tried  for offences  punishable  under sections 506(ii),  337, 354,  504, 498-A, read with sections 114 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of the same Metropolitan Magistrate,  40th Court,  Girgaum,  Bombay.  By notifications dated 4th December, 1979, 3rd August, 1983 and 17th July,  1985, the  Government of Maharashtra in exercise of powers  under section  24(8) of  the Code  appointed  two advocates as  Special Public  Prosecutor for  conducting the prosecution. These notifications were assailed in a group of writ petitions  before the  Bombay High Court and a Division Bench of  that Court  by a  common judgment  dated 2nd July, 1986,  rejected   the  writ   petitions   and   upheld   the appointments. That  common judgment  of the  High  Court  is assailed in  this batch  of appeals.  Since common questions have been  raised and  argued at a time, this judgment shall dispose of all the three appeals.      The impugned  appointments have  been  made  either  in exercise of  powers under  section 24  or section  25 of the Code of  Criminal Procedure  of 1973.  Section 24 deals with Public Prosecutors  while section  25 makes  provisions  for Assistant Public  Prosecutions.  While  sub-section  (1)  of section 24  enables the  Central  Government  or  the  State Government to  appoint a  Public Prosecutor or an Additional Public Prosecutor  for the  purpose  of  High  Courts,  sub- section (2)  makes provision  for appointment of one or more Public Prosecutors  for the  purposes of conducting of cases in any district or local area and sub-sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 deal with the modality of such appointments, sub-section (8) provides:           "The Central  Government or  the State  Government           may appoint, for the purposes of any case or class           of cases,  a person who has been in practice as an           advocate for  not less than ten years as a Special           Public Prosecutor." Section 25  deals with  the appointment  of Assistant Public

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

Prosecutors Sub-section (1) provides:           "The  State  Government  shall  appoint  in  every           district one  or more Assistant Public Prosecutors           for  conducting  prosecutions  in  the  courts  of           magistrates." 872 The provisions  contained in  these two sections in the Code of 1973  correspond to  section 492  of the  old Code  which dealt with the appointment of Public Prosecutors.      Challenge by  the appellants  to the  notifications  in question is  on the  ground that  the Code confers a special status on  the  Public  Prosecutor;  whenever  it  has  been considered necessary,  law has prescribed the interest to be represented by  the Public Prosecutor and it would not be in proper exercise  of power  by the  State Government  to make appointment of  a Special  Public Prosecutor  to  support  a private transaction  and provide  for his  remuneration from private source. The High Court referred to some decisions of the  different  Courts  supporting  and  opposing  the  view canvassed before it and came to hold:           "According to  us, the conduct of prosecution by a           lawyer appointed  and paid  by the  private  party           does  not  affect  his  capacity  and  ability  to           perform his role as a Public Prosecutor. To accept           such a  proposition is  to invalidate  all private           prosecutions." Negativating the  plea advanced  by the appellants, the High Court has further held:           "For the  reasons given above, with respect, it is           not possible  for  us  to  agree  that  a  pleader           engaged  by   a  private  person  is  a  de  facto           complainant  and  cannot  be  expected  to  be  as           impartial as  a pleader  appointed by the State to           conduct public  prosecution. On the other hand, we           are of the view that as stated earlier, permission           to engage  an advocate  should be  given freely to           the complainant.  The complainant  has as  much  a           right  as   the  accused  to  represent  his  case           effectively before the court." The High  Court also  negatived the  challenge  against  the appointment  of   the  Assistant  Public  Prosecutors  under section 25 by holding:           "Hence the  absence of a provision such as section           24(8) will  not bar  appointment of  an  Assistant           Public Prosecutor  specially to  conduct a case or           class of cases." While dealing  with the  matter at  a different place in the judgment the High Court observed: 873           "But apart  from this,  we are  of the  view  that           guidelines or  no guidelines,  whenever there is a           request made  by a  private  party  to  engage  an           advocate of  his choice to be paid for by him, the           request  should   be  granted   as  a   rule.  The           complainant in  such cases  is either  a victim of           the  offence  or  is  related  to  the  victim  or           otherwise an  aggrieved person.  He has a right to           be heard  and vindicated.  As stated  earlier, the           right  to   be  heard   implies  a   right  to  be           effectively represented  at  the  hearing  of  the           case. He  has  therefore  a  right  to  engage  an           advocate of  his choice.  There  is  therefore  no           reason  why   the  State  should  refuse  him  the           permission to  conduct the  prosecution  with  the           help of his advocate........."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

Appellant’s counsel have challenged these conclusions of the High Court.  Under the  Criminal Procedure  Code, the Public Prosecutor has  a special  status, and  his is  a  statutory appointment. Under  some of the provisions made in the Code, he receives  special recognition.  Section 2(u)  of the Code defines the Public Prosecutor. Sections 199(2), 225, 301(1), 301(2),  302,  308,  321,  377  and  378  are  some  of  the provisions in  the Code which confer a special position upon the Public  Prosecutor. From  the spirit  contained  in  the scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code it is clear that it is the duty  of the  Public Prosecutor  to support prosecutions initiated by  the State. Trial before a court of session has to be  conducted by  the Public Prosecutor as required under section 225 of the Code. Cases instituted on a police report are intended  also to  be handled  by a  Public  Prosecutor. Cases  instituted  on  a  complaint,  however,  stand  on  a different footing  and the complainant has choice of his own counsel. A  set of  rules known  as Maharashtra Law Officers (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Remuneration) Rules, 1984 made  in exercise  of powers  conferred by  proviso  to Article 309  read with  Article 165 of the Constitution have been placed  before us in course of the hearing. Chapter III of those  rules lays  down qualifications  of the Government Pleader and  Public Prosecutor  while Chapter  IV prescribes the duties  of the  Public Prosecutor.  Another set of rules known as  The Rules  for the Conduct of the Legal Affairs of the Government,  1984, which appears to be administrative in character, was  also placed  before us. Chapter III of these Rules  provides  for  Special  Counsel  and  Special  Public Prosecutors and Rule 22 thereof provides:           "If in  any case,  civil or criminal, a request is           made by any private party, interested in the case,           for the appointment of 874           its own  advocate as  a Special Counsel or Special           Public Prosecutor,  as the  case may  be,  on  the           condition  that   the  payment  of  fees  of  such           advocate  will   be  borne   by  that  party,  the           Remembrancer   of   Legal   Affairs   may,   after           considering such  case  on  merits,  appoint  such           advocate for the particular case or cases." Appellant’s counsel  challenged the  validity of Rule 22 and contended that  such a Rule is contrary to the spirit of the Code of Criminal Procedure and this rule affects the special status conferred  on the  Public Prosecutor  and would cause prejudice to that public office.      The office  of the Public Prosecutor is a public one. A learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in K.C. Sood v. S.C. Gudimani,  [1981] Crl.  L.J. Vol. II, 1779 rightly held that the Public Prosecutor, the Additional Public Prosecutor and the  Assistant Public  Prosecutor hold  an  office.  The learned Judge said:           "It is  public office  of trust and therefore like           any other  public office, is susceptible to misuse           and corruption  and if  not properly insulated. It           is an office of responsibility more important than           many others  because the  holder  is  required  to           prosecute with  detachment on the one hand and yet           with vigour  on  the  other.  When  advocates  are           recruited to  these  offices,  they  have  certain           professional   and    official   obligations   and           privileges.   Some    State    Governments    have           appropriately made  it an  express term  of  their           appointment that  they shall  not accept any brief           in criminal  matters and  shall not  even in civil

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

         matters appears in any case in which the interests           of the State appear to be involved."      Similar  observations  were  made  by  another  learned Single Judge  in the case of P.G. Narayanankutty v. State of Kerala and  Ors., [1982]  Crl. L.J.  Vol. 88,  2085. In this case, Bhat, J., of the Kerala High Court pointed out:           "Special Public  Prosecutor  cannot  be  appointed           with a  view to  secure convictions  at all costs.           Special Public  Prosecutor could be appointed only           when  public   interest  demands  it  and  not  to           vindicate the grievances of a private person, such           as close  relation of  the deceased. In order that           he discharges  his duties properly, he should look           to the State for remuneration for his services; if           he looks to a 875           private party  for his  remuneration, his capacity           and  ability   to  perform   his  role  as  Public           Prosecutor properly will be endangered. Government           cannot appoint  Special Public  Prosecutor on such           terms, abdicating  their financial  responsibility           or directing  him to receive his remuneration from           any private individual ...........      Some other  High Courts  have taken a different view of the matter.  A division  Bench of  the Gujarat High Court in Dilipbhai Chhotalal  Dave v. State of Gujarat & Ors., [1971] Guj. L.R.  Vol. 12, 999 considered a case of this type where the Public  Prosecutor and  the Assistant  Public Prosecutor were designated as Special Public Prosecutors for conducting a  particular   case.  It   was  found  by  the  Court  that remuneration of  the advocates  had been left to be fixed by agreement between  them and  the Central  Bank of  India for whom they  were to appear was to pay them directly. The High Court held:           "That  though   the  Public  Prosecutor  would  be           incharge  of   and  is  required  to  conduct  the           prosecution before  the  court  of  sessions,  the           control  of   proceedings  before   the  Court  is           ultimately in the hands of the presiding Judge. It           would not  be unreasonable to assume that if there           is  unnecessary  prolongation  of  the  trial  and           consequential harassment  of the  accused  at  the           hands of  the Public Prosecutor or unfair handling           of the  prosecution case  by the  prosecutor,  the           Court  would  always  intervene  and  protect  the           accused and ensure a fair trial." The Court further found that:           "Rule 38  of the  Gujarat Law Officers (Conditions           of Service)  Rules, 1965  made provision that if a           Special  Counsel  was  appointed,  the  terms  and           conditions of  his employment would be such as may           be determined  by the State Government by an order           in writing. It was open to the State Government to           provide for  fees of the Special Counsel appointed           by it  to  be  paid  by  virtue  of  an  agreement           directly arrived  at between  the Special  Counsel           and the complainant." Some other  cases taking  the same  view as the Gujarat High Court were also placed before us in course of the hearing. 876      The pattern that prevails in most of the States is that there is  a Remembrancer  of Legal  Affairs who  inter  alia looks after  the cases  instituted  by  the  State.  At  the district level such interest of the State is looked after by the District Magistrate. There may be instances where a case

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

instituted on  a private complaint is really a public cause. In such a case the prosecution though initiated by a private individual is  really one  which should be taken over by the State. If  the complainant  thereof approaches the State for assistance in  a case  of that  type by appointing a Special Public Prosecutor  or  an  Assistant  Public  Prosecutor  to support  the   prosecution  it   would  be   for  the  Legal Remembrancer  or   the  District  Magistrate  to  favourably consider such  a request and it would ordinarily be expected that Government would appoint a Special Public Prosecutor to take charge  of the  prosecution. There may also be cases of private complainants  where for  various  other  reasons  it would  be   appropriate  for   the  State   to  support  the prosecution by  appointing a  Public Prosecutor or a Special Public Prosecutor  to look after the case. Instances of this type would  be cases  where the  victims are of economically backward classes  who are  not in  a position  to  vindicate their rights  through Court  without the  assistance of  the State. Here  again the  Public Prosecutor’s  services may be placed at  the disposal  of the  complainant. It  is a well- known position  in Criminal  Jurisprudence that the State is the prosecutor  and that  is why  the  primary  position  is assigned to  the Public  Prosecutor  and  where  the  Public Prosecutor appears,  the request  of the  complainant or the victim to  be represented by any other counsel is subject to permission of the Court.      Two questions  have now  to be  dealt with-whether as a rule  whenever   there  is  a  request  made  by  a  private complainant  for   the  appointment   of  a  Special  Public Prosecutor, should  the same  be accepted  and whether  such Special Public  Prosecutor should  be paid  by  the  private party availing  his services.  In most  of the States, as we have already  observed, the  Remembrancer of  Legal  Affairs looks after  the State  litigations.  He  is  a  responsible officer and  normally  with  judicial  experience.  When  an application for  the services of a Special Public Prosecutor or an  Assistant Public  Prosecutor is  made in a given case the power  would be  vested in  him to examine the facts and take decision  as to whether the case merits the appointment of a  Special  Public  Prosecutor  or  an  Assistant  Public Prosecutor. It  would  not  be  appropriate  to  accept  the position that  whenever an  application is made it should be allowed and  a Special Public Prosecutor should be appointed would be  contrary to  the spirit of the scheme of the Code. There may  be cases  where a  powerful complainant  may have begun a 877 proceeding to  victimize his opponent. If in such a case the State concedes  to the  request for appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor there will be travesty of justice. Without screening on  the basis  of guidelines  prescribed or  to be prescribed, the  services of  a  Special  Public  Prosecutor should not  be made  available to a private complainant. The primacy given  to the  Public Prosecutor under the scheme of the Code  has a social purpose and the same would be lost if the procedure  adopted  by  Rule  22  of  Maharashtra  Rules referred to  above is  accepted or  what the  High Court has indicated is  adopted. We  are inclined  to observe that the request for  appointment  of  a  Special  Public  Prosecutor should be  properly examined  by the  remembrancer of  Legal Affairs and only when he is satisfied that the case deserves the support  of a  Public Prosecutor  or  a  Special  Public Prosecutor that  such a  person should  be appointed  to  be incharge of the case.      The next  question would  be whether the Special Public

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

Prosecutor should  be permitted  to be  paid by  the private complainant. There  is considerable  force in  what has been stated by the Kerala High Court in the case we have referred to above.  There may be certain cases where exception may be made, such  as where  the  prosecutor  is  a  public  sector undertaking,  a   bank  whether   nationalised  or  not,  an educational institution  and the  like.  The  rate  of  fees should be  prescribed and  the private complainant should be called upon to deposit the fees either with the Remembrancer of Legal Affairs or a prescribed State agency from where the fees would  be drawn  by the  Special Public  Prosecutor. To leave the  private complainant  to pay to the Special Public Prosecutor would indeed not be appropriate. We would make it clear that  we do  not support  the conclusion  of the  High Court  that   as  a   rule  whenever  there  is  request  of appointment of  a Special  Public Prosecutor or an Assistant Public  Prosecutor,   the  same   should  be  accepted.  The Remembrancer  of   Legal  Affairs  should  scrutinise  every request, keeping  a prescribed  guideline in view and decide in which  cases such request should be accepted, keeping the facts of  such case  in view.  Ordinarily the Special Public Prosecutor should  be paid  out of the State funds even when he appears in support of a private complainant but there may be some  special case  where the Special Public Prosecutor’s remuneration may  be collected  from the  private source. In such cases the fees should either be deposited in advance or paid to  a prescribed  State agency  from where  the Special Public Prosecutor  could collect  the same. In view of these conclusions and  our disagreeing  with the  view of the High Court, the  appeals shall  stand allowed.  Rule  22  of  the Maharashtra Rules, referred to above, in our view is bad and the State Government should properly modify the same keeping 878 our conclusions  in view.  The Remembrancer of Legal Affairs of the  Maharashtra Government will now decide as to whether in the  three cases  referred to  here, the  services  of  a Special  Public   Prosecutor,  a  Public  Prosecutor  or  an Assistant Public  Prosecutor should  be provided and in case he comes  to the  conclusion that  such provision  should be made,  he   should  decide   as   to   whether   the   State administration should  pay for such Public Prosecutor or the private complainant  should bear the same. There would be no order as to costs. H.S.K.                                 Appeals allowed. 879