LAXMA REDDY S Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein who are practising advocates in the District Court, Mehboobnagar, have filed these writ petitions aggrieved of the process of decision making of the Government in appointing the 3rd respondent as Public Prosecutor for the third term for the Court of Sessions Judge, Mahboobnagar through GO.Rt. No. 587, Law (L, A and J. Courts-A) Department, dated 13-5-2002, as per Sec. 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with the administrative instructions contained in G.O.Ms.No.187 Law (L) Department dated 6-12-2000, for a period of three years from the date of taking charge of the post or till termination of his services whichever is earlier.

(2.) Before going into the merits of the cases, it is apposite to consider the power and pivotal position of the Public Prosecutor. Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy, speaking for the Bench, in the case of Rajender Kumar Jain v. State through Special Police Establishment and others (AIR 1980 SC 1510) held the Public Prosecutor as Minister of Justice. It is further observed that the Court has a responsibility and a stake in the administration of criminal justice and so has the Public Prosecutor, its Minister of Justice. Both have a duty to protect the administration of criminal justice against possible abuse and misuse by the Executive by resort to the provisions of Section 321 of the Code. The Apex Court described the position of the Public Prosecutor in the following words: ....The bureaucrat too should be careful not to use peremptory language when addressing the Public Prosecutor since it may give rise to an impression that he is coercing the Public Prosecutor to move in the matter.....

(3.) The position of the Public Prosecutor was further reiterated by the Apex Court in a decision Abdul Kareem v. State of Karnataka (2001 SCC (Crl.) 59) commonly known as Veerappan case.