Special Public Prosecutor appointment under anti-money laundering law turns on statutory independence and panel eligibility.

Section 46 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, read with section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, governs appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor for proceedings before the Special Court. The Supreme Court treated the office of Public Prosecutor as part of the administration of justice, not a civil post or master-servant appointment, and construed the word "under" in section 46(2) consistently with institutional independence and statutory eligibility. It also noted that a person on the government panel may satisfy the requirement for appointment. On that basis, the objection to the proposed advocate's appointment was rejected and the advocate was found fit for appointment.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on a combined reading of section 46 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court could direct appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI and ED, and whether the expression "under" in section 46(2) required the appointee to be a government employee or otherwise held that the proposed advocate was ineligible.

Analysis: Section 46(1) deems the person conducting prosecution before the Special Court to be a Public Prosecutor, while its proviso permits the Central Government to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor. The Court read section 46 together with section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and held that the appointment must conform to the statutory scheme governing Public Prosecutors. The expression "under" in section 46(2) was construed in a manner consistent with the institutional independence and dignity of the office of Public Prosecutor, which is not a civil post or a master-servant employment under the State. The Court also emphasised that a Public Prosecutor serves the administration of justice and is a minister of justice, and that the proposed advocate satisfied the statutory requirement of being on the government panel.

Conclusion: The objection to the appointment was rejected, and the proposed advocate was found fit for appointment as Special Public Prosecutor.

---