Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, May 2: Division Bench of High Court has directed the State to explain the guidelines being followed while making appointment of the Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors. Even the Registrar General has been asked to file an affidavit with regard to number of courts where the Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors are required.
These directions were passed in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by final year students of Graduation in Law, University of Jammu seeking effective prosecution of criminal trials particularly involving capital sentence and life imprisonment with a view to prevent crime, convict the offenders and to make punishments a real deterrent.
When the PIL came up for hearing, Advocate Rohit Kapoor appearing for the petitioners submitted that effective prosecution is sine- quo- non for punishing the offender and can play a vital role in making the punishment deterrent. However, many criminals involved in heinous crimes are able to escape arrest and conviction solely because of deficiencies in prosecution.
“The Law Commission has stated that the Public Prosecutor has to be independent of the executive and all external influences, also independent of the police and the investigation process but the criminal justice system in the country including the State of J&K is flawed”, Advocate Kapoor said.
“In J&K, a Public Prosecutor and Additional Public Prosecutor get a retainer-ship of Rs 6000 and Rs 5500 respectively. The counsel fee for criminal cases like murder and rape etc is Rs 3000 for the entire trial which may last for years together, at times for more than a decade. This extremely low fee structure does not attract many lawyers with sound knowledge and experience in criminal law”, he said, adding “such lawyers are engaged by the accused as they are paid well by them. In high profile cases, very often the best of the lawyers with experience in criminal law are engaged for prosecution by the Government. This in itself shows that the Law Department is aware of the fact that the Public Prosecutors engaged by it may not be able to handle these criminal cases where they engage the Special Public Prosecutor”.
He also drew the attention of the Division Bench towards the report of retired Chief Justice of India, Justice J S Verma submitted to the Prime Minister on January 23, 2013 mentioning that Public Prosecutors should be appointed on the basis of merit in accordance with the recommendations made by the Chief Justice of the High Court and not on the basis of any political consideration.
Senior AAG Gagan Basotra appearing for the State didn’t dispute the statement of counsel for the petitioners that out of 44 posts of PPs and Additional PPs four have been lying vacant resulting into delay in the hearing of cases pending before various courts.
After hearing Advocate Rohit Kapoor and Senior AAG Gagan Basotra, Division Bench comprising Chief Justice MM Kumar and Justice DS Thakur, directed Registrar General to file an affidavit with regard to number of courts where the Public Prosecutors/Additional Public Prosecutors are required and the total number of such officers available.
About the issue raised in the CMA that no effort was being made by the respondents to ensure the quality of Public Prosecutors, Division Bench directed Senior AAG to place on record the guidelines, if any, which might have been laid down by the Government to ensure that competent people man these important posts. The DB directed registry to list the PIL after three weeks.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel