REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

K ANBAZHAGAN Appellant

V/S

STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

PULIN BEHARI V. KING EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
K. ANBAZHAGAN V. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. SURJIT SINGH ADVOCATES GENERAL FOR THE STATES OF KERALA GUJARAT U P ASSAM MADRAS AND WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
BHIMAPPA BASAPPA BHU SANNAVAR VS. LAXMAN SHIVARAYAPPA SAMAGOUDA [REFERRED TO]
MANSOOR VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
GOKARAJURANGARAJU ACHANTI SREENIVASA RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
J JAYALALITHA VS. U O I [REFERRED TO]
SHIV KUMAR VS. HUKAM CHAND [REFERRED TO]
B R KAPUR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
K ANBAZHAGAN VS. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [REFERRED TO]
JAYENDRA SARASWATI SWAMIGAL ALIAS SUBRAMANIAM VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
SELVI J. JAYALALITHAA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
SELVI J JAYALALITHAA VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
HARADHAN SEN AND ETC. VS. THE STATE [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The question for consideration is whether Mr. G. Bhavani Singh appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor in the trial of the case against Ms. Jayalalithaa and other accused persons in the Special Court in Bengaluru was entitled to represent the prosecution in the appeals filed in the Karnataka High Court by the accused persons against their conviction.

(3.) My answer to this question is in the negative on an appreciation of earlier directions given by this court, on a reading of the notification appointing Mr. Bhavani Singh as a Special Public Prosecutor and on an interpretation of Sections 24, 25, 25-A and 301(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The result is that the hearing of the appeals in the High Court stands vitiated, since the prosecution was not represented by an authorized person.

Click here to view full judgment.

K ANBAZHAGAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address