TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether an appeal for enhancement of sentence under Section 377(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be filed through a Special Public Prosecutor appointed under Section 24(8) of the Code; (ii) whether, in the circumstances of the case, the appeal should be treated as a revision petition and decided on merits.
Issue (i): Whether an appeal for enhancement of sentence under Section 377(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be filed through a Special Public Prosecutor appointed under Section 24(8) of the Code.
Analysis: Section 24(8) specifically enables the Central Government or the State Government to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor for conducting any case or class of cases. A Special Public Prosecutor so appointed functions as a Public Prosecutor for the purposes of the Code. The objection that the appeal was not maintainable merely because it was filed by a Special Public Prosecutor was therefore untenable.
Conclusion: The objection to maintainability on this ground was rejected and the appeal could not be dismissed for want of filing by a Public Prosecutor in the narrower sense.
Issue (ii): Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the appeal should be treated as a revision petition and decided on merits.
Analysis: Considering the facts and the relief sought, the matter was found fit for exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The Court accepted that the proceeding could be treated as a revision so that the controversy could be examined on merits in accordance with law.
Conclusion: The appeal was directed to be treated as a revision petition and the matter was remitted for decision on merits.
Final Conclusion: The decision partly interfered with the High Court order by removing the technical objection to maintainability and enabling reconsideration of the matter in revision on the merits.
Ratio Decidendi: A Special Public Prosecutor appointed under Section 24(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is a Public Prosecutor for the purposes of that Code, and a proceeding may be treated as a revision where the circumstances warrant exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
