REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.                        2008 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL) NO. 1248 of 2006)

JAYENDRA SARASWATI SWAMIGAL   @ SUBRAMANIAM                                       …APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF TAMIL NADU            …RESPONDENT

J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

K.G. BALAKRISHNAN,  CJI.   :

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant herein is one of the accused in a Crime

registered  by  Vishnu  Kanchi  Police  Station  at  Tamil  Nadu.

The police after investigation  filed final report on  21-1-2005

and the case was committed to the Principal Sessions Judge-

Chinglepet  and was registered  as Session Case No. 197/05.

The  appellant  then moved  this  Court  under  Section 406 of

Code of  Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as

Cr.P.C.)  seeking transfer of the case to any other State.  The

appellant alleged  in the Transfer Petition that he was being

unnecessarily harassed by the State of Tamil Nadu and that

he would not get a fair trial.  This Court in  SRI JAYENDRA

SARASWATHI 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-

2

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 Sessions Case 94/2005.   

3. The Home Department of the State of Tamil  Nadu  on

25-11-2005 appointed one Special Public Prosecutor  and four

Additional Special Public Prosecutors for conducting the trial

of the Sessions case pending before the Principal District and

Sessions  Judge,  Pondicherry.  The  appellant  herein  filed  a

petition before the Sessions court challenging the appointment

of  the  Public  Prosecutors  by  the  State  of  Tamil  Nadu  and

contended  that  the  Special  Public  Prosecutor  appointed  by

State of Tamil Nadu has no right to conduct the prosecution of

3

the  Sessions  case  pending  before  the  Pondicherry  court,

outside  the  State  of  Tamil  Nadu.    The  Principal  Sessions

Judge, Pondicherry, by an order dated 25-1-2006,  held that

under Section 24 of the Cr.P.C.  the State of Tamil Nadu has

the  power  to  appoint  the  Special  Public  Prosecutor  for

conducting the trial of the case and the State had not lost its

right to appoint the  Public Prosecutor,  merely on account of

transfer of the case to  the Sessions court at Pondicherry.  The

court also noticed the fact that this Court,   while transferring

the Sessions case at Pondicherry,  had not specifically directed

that  the  State  of  Tamil  Nadu  shall  not  appoint   a  Public

Prosecutor to conduct the case.  

4. The  appellant  preferred  a Revision  Petition  challenging

the order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Pondicherry.   The  High  Court  of  Madras  confirmed   the

decision of the Sessions court and held that the offence had

been  committed  within  the  State  of  Tamil  Nadu,   the

4

investigation  was  done  by  the  Tamil  Nadu  police  and  the

committal proceedings  had also taken place in the court at

Tamil Nadu and hence the Government of Tamil Nadu had the

domain  over  that  sessions  case  and  unless  this  Court,

considering the special circumstances, directs in a particular

case,  appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor  by the State

to  which  the  case  has  been  transferred  in  the  interest  of

justice,   the   transferee  State  cannot  normally  venture  to

appoint  any  Special  Public  Prosecutor  to  handle  the  case

which it received  as per the orders of this Court.   The High

Court was also of the view that it would be unjust to direct the

transferee State Government to open  the purse stings to meet

out the expenditure for the appointment of a Special  Public

Prosecutor.  

5. The  appellant  has  challenged  the  order  passed  by  the

Sessions court as well as the High Court by which the Special

5

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

6

specifically  directed that trial should be conducted by  the

prosecutor appointed by the Government of Pondicherry and

therefore,   State  of  Tamil  Nadu  has  got  the  authority  to

appoint  a  Public  Prosecutor  to  conduct  the  trial  of  such  a

case.  It was argued that the incident had taken place in the

State  of  Tamil  Nadu and that  being  an offence   committed

against  the  State  of  Tamil  Nadu  that  State  alone   could

appoint the Public Prosecutor to conduct the prosecution of

the case unless specifically otherwise directed by this Court

while transferring  the case under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C.

7. For  the  purpose  of  understanding  the  scheme  of

appointment  of a Public Prosecutor  to conduct the trial it is

necessary to look into  various provisions  of Chapter II of the

Cr. P.C.  Section 6 of Cr.P.C. prescribes that in every State

there shall be following classes of criminal courts : Courts of

Sessions,  Judicial  Magistrate  of  the First  Class (and in any

Metropolitan  area,  Metropolitan  Magistrate),  the  Judicial

7

Magistrate  of  the  second  class  and  Executive  Magistrate.

Section 7(1) prescribes  that every State shall have a sessions

division or shall consist of several sessions divisions and every

sessions  division  shall,  for  the  purposes  of  the  Code,  be  a

district  or  consist  of  districts.  It  also  prescribes  that  every

metropolitan area shall  be  a separate  sessions division and

district.   Sub-section (2) provides that the State may alter the

limits of such division and districts after  consultation  with

the High Court. Section 9 requires that the State Government

shall establish a court of sessions for every sessions division,

and every court of sessions shall be presided over by a Judge

to be appointed by the High Court.  Section 10 deals with the

constitution  of the Assistant Sessions Judge and Section 11

deals  with  the  constitution  of  the  court  of  Judicial

Magistrates.  Section 12 deals with the appointment of Chief

Judicial Magistrate and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.

Sections  16,  17  and  18  deal  with  the  constitution  of  the

various Metropolitan Magistrates’ courts and Section 20 deals

8

with appointment  of  Executive  Magistrate.  Section 24 deals

with  the  appointment  of  Public  Prosecutors.  “Public

Prosecutor” has been defined under Section 2(u) of the Cr.P.C.

:-  

“Public Prosecutor” means any person appointed  under  Section  24,  and includes  any person acting under the directions of a Public Prosecutor.”

Section  24  (1)  deals  with   the  appointment  of  Public

Prosecutor 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

9

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

conduct  any  prosecution,  appeal  or  other  proceedings

pending before  the courts in that State.   The power of the

State  Government  to  appoint   a   Public  Prosecutor   and

Additional  Public  Prosecutor   would  extend  only  for

conducting any prosecution,  appeal  or  other  proceedings  in

the courts within the State.  As per the procedure prescribed

under  Section  24,  the  State  of  Tamil  Nadu  can  appoint  a

10

Public  Prosecutor  to  conduct  criminal  cases  in  any  of  the

court in that State.  Such powers cannot be exercised  by the

State Government to conduct cases in any other State.  Once

the case is transferred as  per Section 406 of the Cr.P.C.  to

another State,   the transferor State  no longer  has control

over the prosecution to be conducted in a court situated  in a

different State to which the case has been transferred.  It is

the prerogative  of the State Government  to appoint a Public

Prosecutor  to  conduct  the  case  which  is  pending  in  the

sessions division of that State.   Of course,  this Court while

passing order of transfer,   can give an appropriate direction

as  to  which  State  should  appoint  the  Public  Prosecutor  to

conduct that particular case.  Such orders are  passed having

regard to the  circumstances  of the case and the grounds on

which  the  transfer   has  been  effected.   This  Court  can

certainly  give  directions  irrespective   of  the  provisions

contained in Section 24 of the Cr.P.C.  But so far as this case

is  concerned,   nothing had been stated in the  order  of  the

11

transfer.  The provisions contained in the Section 24 of Cr.P.C.

shall  prevail  and it  is for the appropriate State Government

within  whose  area  the  trial  is  conducted  to  appoint  Public

Prosecutor under sub-sections (3) to (7) of Section 24 of the

Cr.P.C.  is the  Government of the State to which the case has

been transferred.   

8. Sub-section  (8)  of  Section  24  of  Cr.P.C.  is  a  special

provision regarding the appointment  of  a Special Prosecutor.

This power can be exercised by the Central Government and

the State Government for the purpose of any case or class of

cases, and a person who has been in practice as an advocate

for not less than  ten years  may be appointed as a Special

Public  Prosecutor.  These powers are also to be exercised by

the  State  Government  of  the  transferee  court  where  the

sessions case is pending.  Of course, the transferee State can

appoint  any person  having qualification   prescribed   under

sub-section (8) of Section 24 of the Cr.P.C.  

12

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

13

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 Prosecutor  in charge

of  the  case  has to  make  the  application  for  withdrawal  of

prosecution as  per   Section  321  of  the  Cr.P.C.   In  case  of

acquittal of the accused the State Government may direct the

Public Prosecutor  to file an appeal.   

10. As is evident from various provisions of the Cr.P.C., the

State Government  of  Tamil  Nadu can only appoint  a Public

Prosecutor  or  an  Additional  Public  Prosecutor  or  a  Special

Public Prosecutor under Section 24  of the Cr.P.C.  to  conduct

the  prosecution  and  appeal,  or  other  proceeding  in  any

criminal  courts in respect   of  any case pending  before  the

courts  of  Tamil  Nadu  and  in  respect  of  any  case  pending

before  the  Courts  at  Pondicherry,  the  State  Government  of

Pondicherry is the appropriate  Government to appoint Public

14

Prosecutor,  Additional  Public  Prosecutor  or  Special  Public

Prosecutor.  

11. However, we make it clear that the State of Pondicherry

can  appoint  any  counsel  as  Public  Prosecutor   having

requisite qualifications as prescribed   under sub-section (8) of

Section 24 of Cr.P.C. whether he is a lawyer in the State of

Pondicherry  or  any  other  State.  As  it  is  a  criminal  case

registered  by  the  State  of  Tamil  Nadu  the  expenses  for

conducting  the trial  are to be borne  by the State of Tamil

Nadu.   The Advocate fees payable to the Public Prosecutor,

Additional Public Prosecutor or Special Public Prosecutor  by

the State of Pondicherry shall be borne by the State of Tamil

Nadu  and  the  Home  Departments  of  the  two  States  may

undertake consultations with each other and an appropriate

decision may be taken by the concerned authorities  in this

regard.  

15

12. We set  aside  the  impugned  order  passed  by  the  High

Court and direct that the State of Pondicherry may continue

with the prosecution of the case in accordance with the law

and the Public Prosecutor or  Special Public Prosecutor may

be  appointed  by  the  State  of  Pondicherry  to  conduct  the

criminal  proceedings  in  respect  of  Sessions  Case  No.  94 of

2005  pending  before  Principal  &  Sessions  Judge  of

Pondicherry.

13. The Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.

                     …………..………………….……CJI

                                            ( K.G. BALAKRISHNAN )

                                            …………….…………………….….J.

                                    ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

      ………..…………………………….J.

16

                                    ( Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA )

NEW DELHI; JULY 22, 2008.

17