Appearance by Public Prosecutors

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. Ajay Kr. Ghoshal Etc vs State of Bihar

   Supreme Court of India 31 Jan 2017 Binding (SC) - Landmark precedent on appellate retrial powers Reportable Criminal Appeal Nos. 119-122 of 2017 (Supreme Court of India) - Reportable

   Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 301, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   The power to order retrial under Section 386(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an exceptional power to be exercised only when the appellate court is satisfied that: (a) the trial was undertaken by a court lacking jurisdiction, or (b) the trial was vitiated by serious illegality or irregularity occasioning failure of justice, or (c) there was a misconception of the nature of proceedings such that there was no real trial. Mere procedural lapses or irregularities in investigation or conduct of trial, without demonstrable miscarriage of justice, are insufficient to order retrial. The appellate court must independently evaluate evidence and arrive at its own conclusions on guilt or innocence rather than remitting to trial court merely because procedural defects exist. De novo trial is a last resort remedy reserved for exceptional circumstances and must be guided by the demand of justice, balancing the accused's right to fair and speedy trial against societal interest in prosecution of serious crimes.

   On this section: Right of victim's representative to appear in criminal appeal - used to include brother of deceased in fresh High Court proceedings

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. 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 301, 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: Examined to determine the limited role of private persons/victims in conducting prosecution; concluded that while Section 301(2) limits victim's right to lead prosecution, it does not preclude victim's participation through written arguments or bringing material errors to court's notice

   Read the full order on eCourts India

3. Tejrao Bhaskarrao Patil vs The State of Maharashtra

   Supreme Court of India 10 May 2023 Persuasive (Supreme Court Precedent)

   Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 301, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Once a charge sheet is filed in a criminal case involving serious allegations like murder, and the High Court in a related bail application has noted through prima facie observations that evidence against the accused is insufficient at that stage, coupled with the accused having undergone nearly three years of custodial detention, bail becomes available as a matter of right subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions by the trial court to ensure attendance, compliance, and prevention of evidence tampering. The gravity of the charge alone is not sufficient to deny bail once the investigative phase is complete and charges are formally established.

   On this section: Referenced in IA No. 73097/2023 regarding application to assist Public Prosecutor; relates to complainant's right to present case before court.

   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.