THILAYIL ABDURAHIMAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the appeal filed by the accused, the Advocate General filed Memo of appearance on behalf of the State of Kerala. The office pointed out that the memo of appearance by the Advocate General is not in order that he cannot appear for the State in view of the decision in State of Kerala v. Krishnan, 1981 Ker LT 839 : (1982 Cri LJ 301). But then it was clarified in reply that the above decision is inapplicable since it was in connection with the question about the presentation of an appeal against acquittal under Section 378, Cr. P.C. that the present case is not and further it was also pointed out that under sub-rule (vi) of Rule 2 of the Rules framed under Art. 165(2) and (3) of the Constitution, the Advocate General has a duty to represent the government in the High Court in proceedings of importance, civil or criminal, original or appellate, in which the Government is a party and he has been specifically directed to appear. The matter has come before us in view of the unresolved question about the competence of the Advocate General to appear for State in a Criminal Appeal, where the Government has specifically authorised him even though there is a Public Prosecutor appointed in terms of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The appeal is still pending. It was in connection with the application the appellant/petitioner filed for bail that the rival contentions between the Advocate General and the Public Prosecutor surfaced. On the date the petition was heard, it was represented that the dispute between them was resolved under an ad hoc arrangement that has however left open the fundamental question raised here, that we felt should be settled, so that the controversy is laid to rest.

(3.) We heard arguments.