RAM DEO SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has moved this Court for quashing the order no. 104 dated 7.1.99, Annexure-1, whereby one Baidehi Yadav has been made incharge Public Prosecutor of Gaya Sessions Division.

(2.) The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed public prosecutor in terms of Sec. 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. His term expired on 29.11.1998. After expiry of the period the order, Annexure-1, was issued, The grievance of the petitioner is that name of Baidehi Yadav, respondent no. 6 was not in the panel sent by the District Magistrate in consultation with the Sessions Judge and as such, such person cannot be made incharge of public prosecutor.

(3.) It is evident from Sec. 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the provision has been made for appointment of public prosecutor and not for the purpose of incharge public prosecutor. It is true that Sub-section (5) of Sec. 24 Cr.P.C. says that no persdn shall be appointed as public prosecutor unless his name exists in the panel sent by the District Magistrate in consultation with the Sessions Judge. Here respondent no. 6 has not been appointed public prosecutor but has been directed to act as public prosecutor till appointment of public prosecutor. It was informed by the learned Govt. Advocate that process for appointment of RP, has already been taken and as such I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, such adhocism is not in the interest of public. Therefore, P.P. must be appointed without any delay.