Scribd
Upload
2K views1 page

Shiv Kumar v. Hukam Chand 1999 (7) SCC 467

The Supreme Court of India observed that while private individuals can conduct prosecution in a magistrate's court with permission, prosecution in a session court can only be done by a Public Prosecutor. The legislature intended this to ensure fairness in trials in session courts. As representative of the state, a Public Prosecutor is expected to act with fairness to the court, investigating agencies, and the accused, rather than simply focus on securing a conviction.

Uploaded by

J Venkatraman
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2K views1 page

Shiv Kumar v. Hukam Chand 1999 (7) SCC 467

The Supreme Court of India observed that while private individuals can conduct prosecution in a magistrate's court with permission, prosecution in a session court can only be done by a Public Prosecutor. The legislature intended this to ensure fairness in trials in session courts. As representative of the state, a Public Prosecutor is expected to act with fairness to the court, investigating agencies, and the accused, rather than simply focus on securing a conviction.

Uploaded by

J Venkatraman
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Shiv Kumar v.

Hukam Chand 1999 (7) SCC 467

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed, “In the magistrate's court anybody (except a police
officer below the rank of Inspector) can conduct prosecution, if the magistrate permits him to do
so. Once the permission is granted the person concerned can appoint any counsel to conduct
the prosecution on his behalf in the magistrate's court….. From the scheme of the Code the
legislative intention is manifestly clear that prosecution in a session court cannot be conducted
by any one other than the Public Prosecutor. The legislature reminds the State that the policy
must strictly conform to fairness in the trial of an accused in a sessions court. A Public
Prosecutor is not expected to show a thirst to reach the case in the conviction of the accused
somehow or the other irrespective of the true facts involved in the case. The expected attitude
of the Public Prosecutor while conducting prosecution must be coached in fairness not only to
the court and to the investigating agencies but to the accused as well. If an accused is entitled
to any legitimate benefit during trial the Public Prosecutor should not scuttle/conceal it. On the
contrary, it is the duty of the Public Prosecutor to winch it to the fore and make it available to the
accused. Even if the defence counsel overlooked it, Public Prosecutor has the added
responsibility to bring it to the notice of the court if it comes to his knowledge. A private counsel,
if allowed free hand to conduct prosecution would focus on bringing the case to conviction even
if it is not a fit case to be so convicted. That is the reason why Parliament applied a bridle on
him and subjected his role strictly to the instructions given by the Public Prosecutor.”

You might also like