Supreme Court of India
MUKUL DALAL ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. ETC.
- Citation
- 1988 INSC 135
- Decided
- 4 May 1988
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- R S PATHAK
Holding
Appointments of Special or Assistant Public Prosecutors must be made at the discretion of the Remembrancer of Legal Affairs after applying prescribed guidelines, and ordinarily their remuneration must be paid from State funds; private funding is permissible only in exceptional cases, rendering Rule 22 invalid.
Summary
The appellants were charged with various offences under the Indian Penal Code and the State of Maharashtra appointed Special Public Prosecutors and Assistant Public Prosecutors for their cases under CrPC sections 24(8) and 25(1) respectively, with the remuneration to be borne by the private complainants as per Rule 22 of the Maharashtra Rules. The appointments were challenged in writ petitions; the Bombay High Court upheld them, prompting special leave appeals to the Supreme Court. The Court examined whether the State could, as a rule, accede to private requests for such appointments and allow private funding, given the special statutory status of the Public Prosecutor. It held that the power to appoint a Special or Assistant Public Prosecutor must rest with the Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, who must apply prescribed guidelines and ordinarily fund the prosecutor from State resources. Private payment may be permitted only in exceptional cases and must be secured through a State agency, rendering Rule 22 invalid and requiring amendment. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the High Court's order set aside.
Issues considered
- The validity of appointing Special Public Prosecutors and Assistant Public Prosecutors under CrPC sections 24(8) and 25(1) to prosecute cases initiated by private complainants.
- Whether remuneration of such prosecutors may be funded by private parties as per Rule 22 of the Maharashtra Rules.
- The scope of discretion of the Remembrancer of Legal Affairs in approving appointments and determining payment.
- The compatibility of Rule 22 with the special statutory status of the Public Prosecutor under the CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 24(8), s. 25(1)
- Constitution of Indias. Article 165, s. Article 309
- Maharashtra Law Officers (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Remuneration) Rules, 1984
- Rules for the Conduct of the Legal Affairs of the Government, 1984s. Rule 22
Subjects
Criminal Procedure CodeSpecial Public ProsecutorAssistant Public ProsecutorRemunerationPublic Prosecutor's independenceRule 22Maharashtra RulesRemembrancer of Legal Affairsprivate prosecutionappointment powerstate funding
Judgment
•
--{
A MUKUL DALAL ETC. ETC.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC; ETC.
MAY 4, 1988
B [R.S. PATHAK, C.J., RANGANATH MISRA AND
, B.C. RAY, JJ.]
-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
-C transaction and provision of remuneratioH from private source--
Whether valid and justified, Held-Duty cast on Remembrancer of
Legal Affairs of State Governm_ent to decide whether services of Special
Public_ Prosecutor or Assistant _Public Prosecutor be' provided in a
p'ar~icular case and. who. should. bedr their expenses.' _ ~
'
D --i'_.Rules for the C~nd~ct oi the-Legal Affairs '/Jfthe Government,
J9S.4-Rule 22::.__Validlty of.• Held-Bad-Require proper, m_odifica-
tion by State Government. " _ ,_ ..
The app~llantS were facing pr~secuti~n for ~e~eral charges nnder
· the Indian Penal Code in differenttrlals. By ·different notifications: the
E 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)- respecti_vely_'or the Code of Crlniinal Procedure, •
1973 for conducting the prosecutioii. The notifications were -challenged
in a group of wrl(petitions before the High Court. A Division Bench of
the High Court by a romrnonjudgment negatived'_the plea advaiJced by./
F the appellants, rejected the writ petitiom 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 re.
presented by' the public prosecutor and it would not be in proper exer-
cise of power by the State Government to make appointment of a Special
G Public Prosecutor_ to support a private transaction and provide for 1-j~
remuneration from Private source. . ~- r - I .. ~ :./ '
- . -i /_.
_Allowing the appeals this Court,
·-·. - ,. - . . ·' - . - -· .- - ' ·'/
HELD: Jn most of the States, the ii~i:e;,.br~n'ce~ or Legal 1lrrairs
'H looks after the State litigations. He is a responsible-officer a~d nofmally
868 f
MUKUL DALAL v. U.0.1. 869
.r
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 appoin· 8
ted would be contrary to the spirit of the scheme of the Code. There
may be cases where a powerful complainant may have begun a proceed·
ing 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 pres·
cribed or to be prescribed, the services of a Special Public Prosecutor C
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·ll; 877A·BI
D
Rule 22 of the . Maharashtra Rules is bad and the State
Government should properly modify the same keeping our conclu·
sions in view. [87711; 878AI · ·
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, E
keeping a prescribed guideline in view and decide in which cases such
request should be accepted, keeplng 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 F·
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-111
In the instant cases the Rememberancer of Legal Affairs of the
Maharashtra Government will now decide as to whether the services of G ·
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' t1>--whether the
State Administration should pay for such Public Prosecutor or the pri·
vate complainant should bear the same. [878A·B 1·
-- H
870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 3 S.C.R.
A K.C. Soodv. S.C. Gudimani, [1981] Crl. L.J. Vol.II, 1779; P.G.
Narayanankutty v. State of Kera/a 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, referr_ed to.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
B No. 305,306 & 307 of 1988. i "'
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 !985.
-
8.B. Bhasme, M.C. Bhandare, Dilip Pillai, P.K. Pillai, T.
c 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.
D
V.S. Desai, G.B. Sathe, A.M. Kbanwilkar and A.S. Bhasme for
the State of Maharashtra.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E 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
F 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 cheat-
ing before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court,
G 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
H 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and is facing his trial in the
~.i
'.':MUKUL DALAL v. U.0.1. [MISRA, J.[ 871
.'-'(
court of the same Metropolitan Magistrate. On 3rd of August, 1983, A
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 Prpsecutors for conducting the prosecution.•In the other
connected Crim~C~.ppeal arising out of S.L.P. (Cr!.) No, 703 of
1987 the appella~ts are being tried for offences punishable under
sections 506(ii), 337, 354, 504, 498-A, read with sections 114 and 34 of B
the Indian Penal Code in the Court of the same Metropolitan Magis-
trate, 40th Court, Girgaum, Bombay. By notifications dated 4th
December, 1979, 3rd August, 1983 and 17th July, 1985, the Govern-
ment of Maharashtra in exercise of powers under section 2.4(8) of the
Code appointed two advocates as Special Public Prosecutor for con-
ducting the prosecution. These notifications were assailed in a group
of writ petitions before the Bombay High Court and a Division Bench
c
of that Court by a common judgment dated 2nd July, 1986, rejected
the writ petitions and upheld the app9intments. That common judg-
ment of the High Court is assailed in this batch of appeals. Since
common questions have been raised and argued at a time, this judg-
ment shall dispose of all the three appeals. D
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 E
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: F
"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."
G
Section 25 deals with the appointment of Assistant Public Prosecutors
Sub-section (1) provides:
"The State Government shall appoint in every district one
or more Assistant Public Prosecutors for conducting pro-
secutions in the courts of magistrates." H
872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I1988] 3 S.C.R.
.
A The provisions contained in these two sections in the Code of 1973
correspond to section 492 of the old Code which dealt with the appoint-
ment of Public Prosecutors.
Challenge by the appellants to the notifications in question is on
B the ground that the Code confers a special status on the Public Pro·
secutor; whenever it has been considered necessary, law has pres- i
cribed 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 support·
c ing 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 Pro·
secutor. To accept such a proposition is to invalidate all
D
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 possi-
J..
E
ble 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
F
advocate should be given .freely (o 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:
G "Hence the absence of a provision such as section 24(8) will
not . bar appointment of an Assistant Public Prosecutor >-
speeially to conduct a case or class of cases."
While dealing with the matter at a different place in the judgment the
H High Court observed:
r
MUKUL DALAL v. U.0.1. (MISRA, J.J 873
"But apart from this, we are of the view that guidelines or A
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 B
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 there-
fore no reason why the State should refuse him'the permis-
sion to conduct the prosecution with the help of his advo-
cate ............. " c
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, D
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 cbntained 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 E
of the Code. Cases instituted on a police report are intended also to be
handled by a Public Prosecutor. Cases instituted on a complaint, how-
• ever, stand on a different footing and the complainant has choice of his
own counsel. A set of rules known as Maharashtra Law Officers (Ap-
pointment, Conditions of Service and Remuneration) Rules, 1984
\
made in exercise of powers conferred by proviso 10 Article 309 read F
with Article 165 of the Constitution have been placed before us in
course of the hearing. Chapter III of those rules lays down·qualifica-
tions 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, G
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 H
874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS IJ988J 3 S.C.R.
its own advocate as a Special Counsel or Special Public
A
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 con-
sidering such case on merits, appoint such advocate for the
particular case or cases."
B
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
c Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in K. C. Sood v. S. C. Gudimani,
11981] Cr!. 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:
D "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 rP-sponsibility 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
E offices, they have certain professional and official obliga-
tions and privileges. Some State Governments have appro-
priately made it an express term of their appointment that
they shall not accept any brief in criminal matters and shall
not even in civil matters appears in any case in which the
interests of the State appear to be involved."
F
Similar observations were made by another learned Single Judge
in the case of P.G. Narayanankutty v. State of Kera/a and Ors., [1982]
Cr!. L.J. Vol. 88, 2085. In this case, Bhat, J., of the Kerala High Court
pointed out:
G "Special Public Prosecutor cannot be appointed with a
view to secure convictions at all cost.s. 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
H State for remuneration for his services; if he looks to a
MUKUL DALAL v. U.0.1. [MISRA, J.J 875
private party for his remuneration, his capacity and ability A
to perform his role as Public Prosecutor properly will be
endangered. Government cannot appoint Special Public
Prosecutor on such terms, abdicating their financial res-
ponsibility or directing him to receive his remuneration
from any private individual .......... " B
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 Prose-
cutors for conducting a particular case. It was found by the Court that C
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 D
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 pro-
longation of the trial and consequential harassment of the
accused at the hands of the Public Prosecutor or unfair
E
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:
F
"Rule 38 of the Gujarat Law Officers (Conditions of
Service) Rules, 1965 made provision that if a Special
Counsel was appointed, the tenns and conditions of his emp-
loyment 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
G
Counsel appointed by it to be paid by virtue of an agree-
ment 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.
H
876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1.988] 3 S.C.R.
A 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 instituted on a private complaint is really a public cause. In such
a case the prosecution though initiated by a private individual is really
B 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 Prose-
cutor to support the prosecution it would be for the Legal Remem-
brancer or the District Magistrate to favourably consider such a
request and it would ordinarily be expected that Government would
C 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 Pro-
secutor to look after the case. Instances of this type would be cases .
where the victims are of economically backward classes who are not in
D a position to vindicate their rights through Court without the assis-
tance 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 procecutor 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
E 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
F 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
G case the power would be vested in him to examine the facts an9 take
decision as to whether the case merits the appointment of a Special
Public Prosecutor or an Assistant Publi~ 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.
H There may be cases where a powerful complainant may have begun a
MUKUL DALAL v. U.0.1. [MISRA, J.[ 877
proceeding to victimize his opponent. If in such a case the State con- A
cedes to the request for appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor
there will be traversty 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 complain-
ant. 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 proce-. B
dure 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. c
The next question would be whether the Special Public Prose-
cutor should be permitted to be paid by the private complainant.
There is 1:onsiderable force in what has been stated by the Kerala High
Court in the case we have referred to above. There may be certain 0
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 pres-
~··
cribed 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 E
Prosecutor. To lea.ve 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 conciusion 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
accepte.d. The Remembrancer of Legal Affairs should scrutinise every F
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 ofa private complain-
ant but there may be some special case where the Special Public Pro-
" secutor's remuneration may be collected from the private source. In G
}4: 1 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 disagree-
ing 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 H
878 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988) 3 S.C.R.
A 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 pro-
vided and in case he comes to the conclusion that such provision
should be made, he should decide as to whether the State administra-
B
tion 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.
l
I
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Criminal Procedure Code"Sign in to search