K. ANBAZHAGAN versus STATE OF KARNATAKAAND OTHERS

Citation: [2015] 7 S.C.R. 469 · Decided: 27-04-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015) 7 S.C.R. 469 
K. ANBAZHAGAN 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKAAND OTHERS 
(Criminal Appeal No.637 of 2015) 
APRIL27, 2015 
[DIPAK MISRA, R.K. AGRAWAL AND 
PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] . -' 
A 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- ss.·24 and 301 -
Power of a State to appoint public prosecutor when case C 
transfe"ed - Transfer of criminal case from State of Tamil 
Nadu to State of Kamataka -Appointment of 4'.h respondent 
as Special Public Prosecutor by State of Kamataka to 
conduct the trial before Special Court in a specific case 0 
pertaining to accused persons - Conviction of accused 
persons - Appeal by accused persons before High Court of 
Kamataka against their conviction - State of Tamil Nadu 
appointing 4th respondent as Special Public Prosecutor to 
appear before the Kam.ataka High Court to defend the cause E 
of the State - Authority of 4th respondent to represent the 
case of the prosecution in the High Court of Kamataka - Held: 
State of Tamil Nadu had no authority to appoint the 4th 
respondent, as the Public Prosecutor to argue the appeal -
State of Kamataka is the sole prosecuting agency and it was F 
alone authorized to appoint the Public Prosecutor -
Appointment of 4th respondent as the Public Prosecutor for 
the trial did not make him eligible to prosecute the appeal 
on behalf of prosecuting agency before the High Court -
Though the appointment of 4th respondent is bad in law, yet G 
no justification to direct for de novo hearing of the appeal, in 
view of the duties of the appeflate Judge, in a case pertaining 
to Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. - Kamataka Law 
469 
H 
470 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A Officers (Appointments and Conditions of Service) Rules 
1977-r. 30. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
8 
HELD: 1.1 The State of Tamil Nadu had no authority 
to appoint the 4th respondent, as the Public Prosecutor 
to argue the appeal. It is the State of Karnataka which is 
the sole prosecuting agency and it was alone authorized 
to appoint the Public Prosecutor. The appointment of 4th 
c respondent as the Public Prosecutor for the trial did not 
make him eligible to prosecute the appeal on behalf of 
prosecuting agency before the High Court. The 
appointment of a Public Prosecutor, as envisaged under 
Section 24(1) CrPC in the High Court is different than 
o the appointment of a Public Prosecutor for the District 
Courts; and that the Notification appointing the 4th 
respondent did not enable him to represent the State of 
Karnataka in appeal. Though the appointment of 4th 
respondent is bad in law, yet there is no justification to 
E direct for de novo hearing of the appeal, regard being 
had to the duties of the appellate Judge, especially in a 
case pertaining to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 
The appellant as well as the State of Karnataka are 
entitled to file their written note submissions within the 
F framework; and the Appellate Judge, after receipt of the 
judgment would peruse the same and be guided by the 
observations made therein while deciding the appeal. 
[Para 37] [510-C-H; 511-A-B] 
G 
1.2 Rule 30 of Karnataka Law Officers (Appointments 
and Conditions of Service) Rules 1977 clarifies that if any 
counsel is to be appointed for the purpose of an appeal, 
the State Government may do so after consulting the 
authorities mentioned therein. There is nothing on 
H record that the 4th respondent was appointed to defend 
K. ANBAZHAGAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 471 
the prosecution in appeal in the High Court. The authority A 
to appear before the High Court is fundamentally 
founded on the interpretation of Section 301 CrPC. 
[Paras 27, 28) [502-F-H] 
1.3 Sections 24 (8) and 301 (1) CrPC when read B 
together, needless to say, confers a right on the Public 
Prosecutor who is in charge of a case to appear and 
plead without having any written authority. He remains 
and functions as the sole authority in charge of the case. 
There can be no cavil over the same. The core question C 
is, whether "in charge of the case" would inc!ude an 
appeal arising out of the said case in the hierarchical 
system. Section 24 (1) deals with the specific power of 
the Government to appoint Public Prosecutor. Section 
24(8) confers the power on the State Government to D 
appoint a Special Public Prosecutor for any case or class 
of cases. There can be a batch of cases under the 
Prevention of Corruption Act against number of persons 
arising out of different FIRs but involving simila
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.