LexK. ANBAZHAGAN versus STATE OF KARNATAKA& ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 355 K. ANBAZHAGAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA& ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 637 of 2015 etc.) April 15, 2015 [MADAN B. LOKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: A B c ss. 2(u), 24, 25, 25A and 301(1) - Special Public Prosecutor-Appointed u/s. 24(8) to appear in the trial before Special Court - Whether could continue as Special Public Prosecutor in the appeals against the order of the Special 0 Court - Held: Per Madan B. Lokur, J.: Appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor was limited only to the trial and automatically terminated on conclusion of the trial - That engagement did not automatically imply any authorization to him to appear for the prosecution in the appeals - Since E the State of Kamataka did not appoint Special Public Prosecutor for the High Court, conducting of the case in appeal before High Court by respondent No. 5 (the Special Public Prosecutor) was without authority - Therefore the proceedings in the appeal are vitiated - The appeals have F to be heard afresh - Per Banumathi, J.:- Once respondent No. 5 was appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor in- charge of a case, he can appear and plead without any written authority before any Court in which that case is under inquiry, trial or appeal - Until the Notification by which the Special G Public Prosecutor was appointed, is quashed by the State, the power uls 301, will continue the authority of Special Public Prosecutor to appear and plead even after end of the trial - 355 H 356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 7 S.C.R. A Per Court: In view of difference of opinion, matter referred to Larger Bench - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898- s. 493- Karnataka Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977 - r.30. B s. 24(8) - Power to appoint Special Public Prosecutor- Criminal case transferred u/s. 406 Cr.PC. to another State - After conclusion of trial, in appeal, Special Public Prosecutor appointed by transferor State - Propriety of- Held: After the transfer of the case, the transferee-State steps into the shoes C of the transferor-State- Thus transferee-State alone is entitled to appoint the Public Prosecutor - The appointment of Special Public Prosecutor by the transferor-State was without authority and non-est in the eye of law. o s.301(2) -Application under- Seeking permission to intervene in pending appeals and to assist Special Public Prosecutor - Application dismissed by High Court - On appeal, plea of the intervener for permission to file written submission before the High Court-Held: s.301(2) does not E postulate filing of written submission - Application rightly rejected by the High Court. F G Words and Phrases: 'Case' - Meaning of, in the context ofss. 24(8) and 301 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Referring the matter to Larger Bench, the Court Held: Per Court: In view of difference of opinion, the Criminal Appeal No.637 of 2015 is referred to the Larger Bench. Per Madan B. Lokur, J.: (Allowing the Criminal Appeal H No.637 of 2015 and dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 638 of2015) K. ANBAZHAGAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 357 Criminal Appeal No. 637 of 2015: A 1.1 The Prosecution against Ms. Jayalalitha and others was at the instance of the State of Tamil Na du but after the prosecution was transferred to Karnataka, and in terms of the decision of this Court rendered in B * Anbazhagan case, Tamil Nadu had no further say in matters relating to the Public Prosecutor or the Special Public Prosecutor (apart from the payment of his fees etc.). It was for Karnataka to appoint the Public Prosecutor. Thus, Karnataka virtually stepped into the C shoes of the State of Tamil Nadu and thereby became directly involved and concerned, at least in so far as the prosecution of the accused persons is concerned. [Para. 29] [386-B-E] Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal v. State of Tamil Nadu 2008 (11) SCR 161: 2008 (10) sec 180- relied on. *K. Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police 2003 (5) D Suppl. SCR 610: 2004 (3) SCC 767 - referred to. E 1.2. On the transfer of a case by this Court u/s. 406 of Cr.P.C., the transferee-State not only steps into the shoes of the transferor-State but it effectively becomes the prosecuting State. It can and does appoint a Public F Prosecutor to prosecute the case. and a Public Prosecutor who is answerable to the Government of the transferee-State only- the Public Prosecutor appointed by one State is certai
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.