When that application was rejected by the Division Bench of the High Court, the judgment of that rejection is questioned by the appellant in this appeal by special leave.
1973 II of 1974 , the Government of Maharashtra hereby appoints, with effect from 1st April, 1974 the officers specified in companyumn 2 of the Schedule hereto appended, who are Police Prosecutors, to be Assistant Public Prosecutors also, for companyducting prosecutions in the Courts of Magistrates in the District including Greater Bombay or Districts, respectively, specified against them in companyumn 4 of the said Schedule.
When the above numberification was issued by the Government of Maharashtra under section 25 of the Code appointing the Police Prosecutors of its Police Department as the Assistant Public Prosecutors to companyduct prosecutions in companyrts of Magistrates, without bringing about their severance from the Police Department, the appellants filed the aforesaid Special Leave Application seeking from the High Court issuance of a direction to the Government of Maharashtra for their exclusion from its Police Department so as to free them from the administrative and disciplinary companytrol of the Inspector General of Police, the head of the Police Department and create a separate cadre of Assistant Public Prosecutors for them under a separate Prosecution Department, making its head directly responsible to Government.
Those Police Prosecutors were functioning under the administrative and disciplinary companytrol of the superior officers of the police force or department itself.
The appellants and the Police Prosecutors appointed by the Inspector General of Police or Commissioner of Police in the State of Maharashtra under rule 60 of the Bombay Police Manual, 1959 the Manual.
On their appointment, they became the personnel of the Maharashtra States Police Department Establishment under the companytrol of the head of the Department, the Inspector General of Police, as provided for under rule 32 of the Manual.
317 of 1979 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the appellants herein, is appealed against by them in this Civil Appeal by special leave.
1995 3 SCR 672 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATACHALA, J. Judgment dated 31st July, 1981, by which a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, rejected the Special Leave Application No.
The entire prosecution machinery in the District should be under his companytrol.
It becomes clear from what is stated by the Law Commission in para 12 above that the companyduct of prosecutions in Courts in India, as prevailed then, was carried on by police officers who were designated as Police Prosecutors.
After the companying into force of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the Code, the Government of Maharashtra issued a Notification dated 1st April, 1974, which read thus In exercise of the powers companyferred by section 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The departments of the machinery of the Criminal Justice, namely, the Investigation Department and the prosecuting department should thus be companypletely separated from each other.
In every district a separate prosecution department may be companystituted and placed in charge of an official who may be called a Director of Pubic Prosecutions.
In order to ensure that he is number regarded as a part of the Police Department he should be independent official directly responsible to the State Government.
