news details |
|
|
| PIL against establishment of Directorate of Prosecution | | DB directs respondents to file reply within month | | EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Feb 12: In the PIL seeking quashment of Govt. Order No. 1104-Home of 2019 dated 30-10-2019, passed by respondent No 3 whereby sanction was accorded to the establishment of Directorate of Prosecution by creating separate prosecution service to be known as "J&K Prosecution Service" in so far as it comprises the members of J&K Police (Gazetted) service (Prosecution wing) and Prosecuting officers (Non-Gazetted) as its members, also seeking qaushment of Govt. Order No. 01-Home of 2019 dated 31-10-2019 whereby Former members of J&K Police Gazetted Service (Prosecution Wing) have been engaged as Deputy Director(s) (Prosecution) after the establishment of Directorate of Prosecution vide order dated 30-10-2019, passed by Respondent No 3.
A Division Bench of J&K High Court comprising Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur directed AAG Raman Sharma to file reply within month.
DB further clarified that no more time was given to file response.
This petition in pubic interest seeks to challenge the Government Order No. 1104-Home of 2019 dated 30.10.2019 where under a separate prosecution Wing known as 'J&K Prosecution Service' has been created pursuant to the directions of Supreme Court in the case S. B. Shahane and others vs. State of Maharashtra. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the aforesaid service so created by the notification consists of members of J&K Police (Gazetted) service (Prosecution wing) and Prosecuting officers (Non-Gazetted) as its members and these persons are not eligible for appointment as Prosecutors in view of Section 24(7) of Code of Criminal Procedure which clearly provides that a person is eligible for appointment as Public Prosecutor /Additional Public Prosecutor only if he has been in practice as an Advocate for not less than seven years.
AAG Raman Sharma appearing for respondents has drawn the attention of the court to sub section 9 of Section 24 and submits that in view of the aforesaid deeming clause a person who had been in service as Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor shall be deemed to be in practice as an Advocate and, therefore, the Police Officers who were working as Prosecuting Officers with a Degree of Law would be covered and eligible for appointment.
The counsels appearing for the petitioners at this stage submits that J&K Prosecution Service Recruitment Rules, 2020 in Schedule II provide for appointment of Prosecuting Officers by direct recruitment from amongst the persons possessing Bachelor of Law (LLB) Degree of a University established by Law. The said Rule completely ignores seven years of practice as stipulated under sub-rule 7 of Section 24 of the Cr.P.C. and as is in conflict with the Code. —JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
