Transferred criminal trials: prosecutor appointment shifts to the transferee State, while prosecution expenses may remain with the transferor State.

After transfer of a criminal case to another State, the power to appoint the Public Prosecutor or Special Public Prosecutor under Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vests in the State controlling the court where the trial is actually pending, unless the transfer order provides otherwise. The transferor State therefore loses appointment authority over that prosecution in the transferee court. The material also notes that, despite the transferee State's appointment power, the prosecution expenses and advocate's fee for the transferred sessions case were directed to be borne by the transferor State, with inter-governmental consultation for implementation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, after transfer of a criminal case from Tamil Nadu to Pondicherry, the power to appoint the Public Prosecutor or Special Public Prosecutor vested in the transferee State or continued with the transferor State; (ii) whether the expenses and advocate's fee for the prosecution in the transferee court were to be borne by the transferor State.

Issue (i): Whether, after transfer of a criminal case from Tamil Nadu to Pondicherry, the power to appoint the Public Prosecutor or Special Public Prosecutor vested in the transferee State or continued with the transferor State.

Analysis: Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vests the appointment of Public Prosecutors and Special Public Prosecutors in the State Government having control over the court where the prosecution is conducted. Once a case is transferred under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to a court in another State, the transferor State no longer has authority over the prosecution in that court unless a specific direction to the contrary is issued. In a sessions trial, the Public Prosecutor has a central role in the conduct of prosecution, including examination of witnesses and other prosecutorial decisions, and the statutory scheme places that function with the Government of the State where the trial is actually pending.

Conclusion: The power to appoint the Public Prosecutor or Special Public Prosecutor vested in the Government of Pondicherry, not in the Government of Tamil Nadu.

Issue (ii): Whether the expenses and advocate's fee for the prosecution in the transferee court were to be borne by the transferor State.

Analysis: Although the transferee State is the appropriate authority to make the appointment, the criminal case originated from an investigation and prosecution by the Tamil Nadu authorities. The Court therefore directed that the prosecution expenses, including the advocate's fee payable in the transferee court, should be borne by the State of Tamil Nadu, with inter-governmental consultation for implementation.

Conclusion: The financial burden of the prosecution was placed on the State of Tamil Nadu.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside in part, and it was declared that the transferee State alone was competent to appoint the prosecuting counsel for the transferred sessions case, while the transferor State was directed to bear the prosecution expenses.

Ratio Decidendi: After transfer of a criminal case to another State, the power under Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to appoint prosecutors for the trial vests in the State where the transferee court is situated, unless the transfer order specifically provides otherwise.

---