Trial to be conducted by Public Prosecutor

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. Sister Mina Lalitha Baruwa vs State of Orissa

   Supreme Court of India 05 Dec 2013 Binding (Supreme Court) Reportable

   Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 225, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   In criminal proceedings involving allegations of grave offences such as rape, where a statutory witness (particularly a judicial officer) makes oral testimony that directly contradicts documentary evidence prepared by that witness himself, and such contradiction is brought to the trial court's notice by the victim or any party, the trial court is duty-bound under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall and re-examine that witness if the evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case. This duty arises independently of whether the victim invokes Section 301 Cr.P.C. (which limits victim's prosecution role), because the proper reconciliation of Sections 301 and 311 permits victims to bring material errors to court's notice, and courts must respond by invoking their broad powers under Section 311 to rectify glaring contradictions. Courts cannot remain passive spectators when such irregularities are brought to notice; they must maintain an active, participatory role to prevent miscarriage of justice. The court's duty is not conditioned by delay if the error is material and affects the just decision of the case.

   On this section: Referenced in context of public prosecutor's mandatory role in Sessions Court trials

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. Margadarsi Financiers vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

   High Court 20 Mar 2009 Persuasive (High Court)

   Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 225, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   A designated Senior Advocate cannot be appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor under Section 24(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, because such appointment would require the Senior Advocate to directly file applications and conduct prosecutions, which violates the mandatory restrictions imposed on Senior Advocates under the Rules framed under the Advocates Act, 1961. Additionally, while the procedure prescribed under Sub-sections 4 and 5 of Section 24 CrPC (panel preparation and consultation) is not mandatory for Special Public Prosecutor appointments under Sub-section 8, the restrictions on Senior Advocates' practice are absolute and cannot be circumvented by government appointment.

   On this section: Requirement that prosecution in Sessions Court be conducted by Public Prosecutor

   Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.