CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(1998) 08 PAT CK 0072

Bihar Prosecution Service Association vs The State of Bihar and Others Shiv Shankar Thakur Vs Suryadeo Yadav and Others

Patna High Court · Decided on 25 August 1998 · Citation: (1998) 3 PLJR 926

HON’BLE JUDGES
Narayan Roy, J
CASE NUMBER
Cr.W.J.C. No. 160 and Cr. Rev. No. 154 of 1993

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 355 words

Narayan Roy, J.—Both these cases are tied up. Therefore, they have been taker, up togetner for hearing. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties it appears that only academic question remains to be decided. The question which has arisen for consideration is as to whether the District Magistrate in exercise of his power under Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could have directed the Public Prosecutor to conduct a particular case, which was already entrusted to a particular Assistant Public Prosecutor.

2.

Sub-secticn (3) of Section 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as foliows;

25(3)-Where no Assistant Public Prosecutor is available for the purposes of any particular case, the District Magistrate may appoint any other person to be the Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of that case.:

Provided that a police officer shall not be so appointed-

(a) If lie has taken any part in the investigation into the offence with respect to which the accused is being prosecuted; or

(b) If he is below the rank of Inspector.

This is admitted position that the Petitioner No. 2, Assistant Public Prosecutor, was incharge of the Court of Sri J.N. Rai, Judicial Magistrate, Patna, where Gardanibagh P.S. Case No. 992/92 was pending, in view of Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the District Magistrate, therefore, could not have directed the Public

Prosecutor to conduct that particular case in the Court of Sri J.N. Rai, Judicial Magistrate, Patna.

3.

However, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, is not pressing for any adjudication by this Court as by efflux of time the trial has been concluded and the accused persons have already been acquitted. In that view of the matter, these applications need not require any adjudication. These applications, therefor, need not proceed.

4.

These applications are, therefore, disposed of with the aforesaid observation:

5.

However, it is clarified that if there shall be any breach of Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the aggrieved party will be at liberty to raise the question at the appropriate stage.