Role Of Public Prosecutor Under Crpc
1. Who is a Public Prosecutor?
A Public Prosecutor is a law officer appointed by the State under Section 24 of the CrPC to conduct prosecution on behalf of the State.
The Public Prosecutor represents the State in criminal proceedings, presenting the case against the accused.
They are expected to conduct the prosecution fairly and impartially, not just win convictions.
2. Appointment and Qualifications
Under Section 24 CrPC, the State Government appoints Public Prosecutors for the sessions courts.
Additional Public Prosecutors can also be appointed under Section 24A.
The law requires them to be qualified advocates and usually experienced in criminal law.
3. Duties and Functions of Public Prosecutor
Present the case before the court in a fair and unbiased manner.
Examine and cross-examine witnesses.
Assist the court in arriving at a just decision.
Advise police and other authorities during investigation (limited role).
Ensure that justice is done, even if it means not pursuing a case which is not supported by evidence.
Ensure compliance with principles of natural justice and prevent misuse of the law.
4. Role in the Criminal Justice System
Public Prosecutor is a link between the State and the Court.
Plays a crucial role in upholding the rule of law.
Balances interest of the society and rights of the accused.
Acts as a watchdog for fair trial.
Landmark Case Laws on Role of Public Prosecutor
1. H.K. Dua v. Union of India (AIR 1995 SC 1340)
Facts:
The Court examined the duties of Public Prosecutors in ensuring fair trial.
Held:
The Supreme Court emphasized that Public Prosecutors are officers of the court and must act fairly, impartially, and justly. Their role is not just to secure conviction but to assist the court in arriving at the truth.
Significance:
This judgment reinforced the ethical obligations of Public Prosecutors and clarified that their role is quasi-judicial.
2. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 AIR 604)
Facts:
Guidelines were laid down regarding misuse of investigation and prosecution.
Held:
The Court held that the Public Prosecutor must exercise independent judgment and not act as a mere tool in the hands of the police or political masters.
Significance:
Emphasized that Public Prosecutors should ensure no abuse of the prosecutorial process and act as gatekeepers against frivolous cases.
3. Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1995 SC 422)
Facts:
The Court highlighted the duty of the Public Prosecutor to disclose all material evidence to the accused and courts, even if it is unfavorable.
Held:
The Public Prosecutor is duty-bound to act fairly, not suppress any evidence and assist the court in delivering justice.
Significance:
This judgment highlighted the prosecutorial duty of disclosure and fairness, not just advocacy.
4. S.N. Shukla v. Union of India (AIR 1980 SC 1378)
Facts:
The case discussed the powers of Public Prosecutors regarding taking decisions to withdraw from prosecutions.
Held:
Public Prosecutors have the discretion to withdraw prosecutions in appropriate cases to prevent abuse of process, but such discretion must be exercised judicially.
Significance:
This judgment affirmed the role of Public Prosecutors as independent actors responsible for fair administration of justice.
5. State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999 AIR SC 2378)
Facts:
The Court stressed the responsibility of Public Prosecutors in speedy trial and efficient disposal of cases.
Held:
Public Prosecutors have a constitutional duty to expedite trials and avoid unnecessary adjournments or delays.
Significance:
Reinforced the role of Public Prosecutors in ensuring timely justice, critical in criminal jurisprudence.
6. K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991 AIR SC 1989)
Facts:
The Supreme Court discussed moral and ethical standards expected from Public Prosecutors.
Held:
Public Prosecutors must maintain the highest standards of professional ethics and integrity. Their conduct must promote public confidence in the judicial process.
Significance:
Set ethical benchmarks for prosecutorial conduct.
7. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981 AIR 472)
Facts:
The Court emphasized the Public Prosecutor’s role as an independent constitutional functionary.
Held:
Public Prosecutors must act independently without succumbing to external pressures.
Significance:
Asserted the independence of Public Prosecutors essential for the rule of law.
Summary Table
| Case | Key Point | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| H.K. Dua | Public Prosecutor as officer of court | Fairness and impartiality |
| Bhajan Lal | Independent judgment | Prevention of abuse |
| Ranjitsing Sharma | Disclosure of evidence | Fair trial |
| S.N. Shukla | Discretion to withdraw | Judicial discretion |
| Baldev Singh | Speedy trial | Timely justice |
| K. Veeraswami | Professional ethics | Integrity standards |
| S.P. Gupta | Independence | Rule of law protection |
Conclusion
The Public Prosecutor plays a pivotal role in criminal justice. Far from being mere advocates for the State, they are quasi-judicial officers with duties towards the court, accused, and society. They ensure fairness, justice, and integrity in prosecution. The judiciary has consistently emphasized their ethical responsibilities, independence, and role in preventing misuse of criminal law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments