# Kishan Kumar Pathak v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 7 ILRA 1071
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-19
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 27571 of 2022
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Jayant Banerji
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kishan-kumar-pathak-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50496
- **Pages:** 45

## Headnote

Civil Law-The Constitution of India-1950Article 226 - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 25A---Writ of
Quo Warranto---Respondent No.5 does not
possess the eligibility/necessary qualification for
appointment on the post of Director of
Prosecution or Dy. Director of Prosecution or
Addl. Director of Prosecution as Head of the
Directorate of Prosecution, the respondent no. 5
is an IPS officer in police service---Sub-section
(2) of Section 25A specifically provides that a
person shall be eligible to be appointed as
Director of Prosecution or Dy. Director of
Prosecution only if he has been in practice as an
Advocate for not less than 10 years and such
appointment
shall
be
made
with
the
concurrence of Chief Justice of the High Court---
Admittedly espondent no. 5 has not been in
practice as an Advocate for not less than 10
years and also his appointment has been made
without concurrence of Chief Justice of the High
Court---Office in question is a public office which
is being held by the respondent no. 5 without
fulfilling the basic eligibility and thus he is a
usurper of the public office holding the post
without any legal authority and his appointment
1072 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
is contrary to the provisions of Section 25A
Cr.P.C---A writ of quo warranto can be issued
when a person holding the public office does
not fulfil the eligibility criteria prescribed for
appointment to such an office or when the
appointment is contrary to the statutory
provisions---Appointment of Respondent No.5
illegal--Respondent No.1 & 2 directed to ensure
that Director of Prosecution under Section
25A(2) Cr.P.C. is appointed within six months
from today. (Para 49, 50 & 57)

Petition allowed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,951 of 149,247. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39951 for what follows._

7 All. Kishan Kumar Pathak Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1071
responsibility should be fixed not only
upon the senior most Revenue Officer of
the State of U.P. but also upon the
Competent / concerning Revenue Officer/
Official of U.P. who is/ are in the down line
of the Revenue Officers.

34. Let copy of this order be provided
to the Additional Chief Secretary/ Principal
Secretary, Department of Revenue, State of
U.P. by the Senior Registrar of this Court
within seven working days and the aforesaid
officer shall circulate this order to the Board
of Revenue as well as to all the District
Magistrates of State of U.P. for its
compliance.

35. It is needless to say that for making
compliance of the directions of this order,
further government order/ circular etc., if
need be, may be issued strictly in accordance
with law. In any case, all the Competent/
concerning Revenue Officers / Officials of
the State of U.P. shall ensure that the public
utility land of the Gaon Sabhas is free from
illegal encroachment and as soon as the
illegal
encroachment
is
noticed,
such
encroachment shall be removed forthwith by
adopting the due process of law inasmuch as
any illegal encroachment over the public
utility land of the Gaon Sabha does not only
create hindrance in utilizing such land in a
manner as has been prescribed in the revenue
records but it also causes serious prejudice to
the villagers at large who genuinely and
seriously bank upon on that public utility
land, e.g. pond, pasture land, Chakmarg,
Khad Gaddha, Khalihan, Banjar land etc.
which are beneficial for the entire village in
question.

36. In view of the aforesaid directions
and observations, the present Public Interest
Litigation Petition (PIL) is disposed of
finally.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 1071
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Writ-C No. 27571 of 2022

Kishan Kumar Pathak ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rahul Mishra, Sri Sanjay Mishra, Sri R.K.
Ojha (Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Pankaj Rai

Civil Law-The Constitution of India-1950Article 226 - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 25A---Writ of
Quo Warranto---Respondent No.5 does not
possess the eligibility/necessary qualification for
appointment on the post of Director of
Prosecution or Dy. Director of Prosecution or
Addl. Director of Prosecution as Head of the
Directorate of Prosecution, the respondent no. 5
is an IPS officer in police service---Sub-section
(2) of Section 25A specifically provides that a
person shall be eligible to be appointed as
Director of Prosecution or Dy. Director of
Prosecution only if he has been in practice as an
Advocate for not less than 10 years and such
appointment
shall
be
made
with
the
concurrence of Chief Justice of the High Court---
Admittedly espondent no. 5 has not been in
practice as an Advocate for not less than 10
years and also his appointment has been made
without concurrence of Chief Justice of the High
Court---Office in question is a public office which
is being held by the respondent no. 5 without
fulfilling the basic eligibility and thus he is a
usurper of the public office holding the post
without any legal authority and his appointment
1072 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
is contrary to the provisions of Section 25A
Cr.P.C---A writ of quo warranto can be issued
when a person holding the public office does
not fulfil the eligibility criteria prescribed for
appointment to such an office or when the
appointment is contrary to the statutory
provisions---Appointment of Respondent No.5
illegal--Respondent No.1 & 2 directed to ensure
that Director of Prosecution under Section
25A(2) Cr.P.C. is appointed within six months
from today. (Para 49, 50 & 57)

Petition allowed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

1. National Human Rights Commission Vs St. of
Guj. & ors. (2009) 6 SCC 767

2. Misc. Bench No. 7825 of 2011 Sadhana
Sharma Vs St. of U.P. through Principal
Secretary Law Department, & ors. and Misc.
Bench No. 4097 of 2011Sadhana Sharma Vs St.
of
U.P.
through
Principal
Secretary
Law
Department, Government of U.P.

3. SLP (C) No. 4042-4043 of 2012 St. of
U.P.
Vs
Sadhana
SharmaITC
Ltd.
Vs
Agricultural
Produce
Market
Committee
(2002) 9 SCC 232

4. Zaverbhai Amaidas Vs St. of Bombay, AIR
1954 SC 752.

5. ESI Corporation Vs Mangalam Publication
(India) (P.) Ltd., (2018) 11 SCC 438

6. Baleshwar Dass & ors. etc. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors., (1980) 4 SCC 226

7. Gambhirdar K. Gadhvi Vs St. of Guj. & ors.
(2022) 5 SCC 179

8. K. Anbazhagan Vs St. of Karnataka & ors.
(2015) 6 SCC 158

9. Ajmer Singh Vs U.O.I., (1987) 3 SCC 340

10. Maru Ram Vs U.O.I. & ors., (1981) 1 SCC
107

11. Jeevan Lal Sharma Vs S.S. Parmar (2007)
51 AIC 842 (HP)
12. Jayaben Vs Tejas Kanubhai Zala &
anr.(2022) 3 SCC 230

13. Civil Appeal No. 6706 of 2022 (St. of W.B.
Vs Anindya Sundar Das & ors.) decided on
11.10.2022

14. Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha Vs
Dhobie Sahoo & ors. (2014)1 SCC 161

15. Bharati Reddy Vs St. of Karn. (2018) 6 SCC
162

16. University of Mysore Vs C.D. Govindra Rao
(1964 4 SCR 575

17. High Court of Gujarat Vs Gujarat Kishan
Mazdoor Panchayat (2003) 4 SCR 712

18. B. Srinivasa Reddy Vs Karnataka Urban
Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees'
Assoc. (2006) 11 SCC 731

19. Bharati Reddy Vs The St. of Karnataka &
ors. Civil Appeal No. 1763 of 2018 decided on
6.3.2018

20. Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi Vs St. of Guj. (2022)
5 SCC 179

21. Rajesh Awasthi Vs Nand Lal Jaiswal (2013) 1
SCC 501 at 514 & Armed Forces Medical
Association Vs U.O.I. (2006) 11 SCC 731

22. Gambhirdan K Gadhvi Vs The St. of Guj. &
ors.) (2022) 5 SCC 179

23. Official Liquidator Vs DhartiDhan (P) Ltd.
(1977) 2 SCC 166

24. A.K. Roy Vs U.O.I. (1982) 1 SCC 271

25. Sub-Inspector Rooplal Vs Lt. Governor
(2000) 1 SCC 644 (paragraph 12 and 13)

26. U.P. Power Corp. Ltd. V. Rajesh Kumar
(2012) 7 SCC 1

27. JaisriSahu Vs Rajdewan Dubey AIR 1962 SC
83

28. Km. Shrilekha Vidyarthi & ors. Vs St. of U.P.
& ors. (1991) 1 SCC 212
7 All. Kishan Kumar Pathak Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1073
29. Union of India & ors. Vs Somasundaram
Viswanath & ors. (1989) 1 SCC 175

30. SK Naushad Rahaman & ors. Vs U.O.I. &
ors. 2022 SCC Online SC 297

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J.)

Sl.
No.
Particulars
Paragrap
h Nos.
1.
Prayer
2
2.
Submissions
4 - 6
3.
DISCUSSION
AND
FINDINGS

(A)
Preliminary objection
of State respondents
on
account
of
pendency of Writ C
No. 923 of 2014 (All
India
Prosecutors
Association
and
another Vs. Union of
India
through
Cabinet
Secretary
and others).
7 - 9
(B)
CREATION
OF
DIRECTORATE OF
PROSECUTION,
UTTAR PRADESH
10 - 14
(C)
Whether Section 25A
Cr.P.C. is applicable
and enforced in the
State
of
Uttar
Pradesh?
15 - 23
(D)
Effect
of
Division
Bench
Judgement
dated
11.1.2012
in
Misc. Bench No. 7825
of
2011
(Sadhana
Sharma Vs. State of
U.P.
through
Principal
Secretary
Law Department, and
others)
and
Misc.
24 - 27
Bench No. 4097 of
2011
(Sadhana
Sharma Vs. State of
U.P.
through
Principal
Secretary
Law
Department,
Government of U.P.)
AND the order of
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court in SLP (C) No.
4042-4043 of 2012.
(E)
Whether Section 25A
shall prevail over the
office
memorandum
dated 27.11.1980?
28 - 31
(F)
Whether Section 24,
25 and 25A Cr.P.C.
needs
to
be
understood
as
a
singular Scheme?
32 - 33
(G)
Whether the Office
Memorandum dated
27.11.1980 is a law
under
Section
5
Cr.P.C.
34
(H)
Whether
Section
25A(2)
Cr.P.C.
is
mandatory
35 - 36
(I)
Whether
the
respondent
no.
5
possesses the essential
qualification/eligibilit
y under section 25A
Cr.P.C. to hold the
public office of the
post in question?
37 - 40
(J)
Whether
as
per
pleadings,
the
respondent No.5 is an
usurper of the public
office and is holding
the
post
without
eligibility and without
any authority of law
41 - 44
(K)
Law of Writ of Quo45 - 48
1074 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Warranto and Locus
Standi
(L)
Whether on facts of
the present case writ
of
quo
warranto
needs to be issued?
49 - 50
(M
)
Judgements relied by
the State respondents
51 - 55
(N)
Brief
Summary
of
Conclusions
56
4.
Relief Granted
57

(Delivered by Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.)
(Concurring)

Sl. No.
Particulars
Page Nos.
1.
Judgment
1 to 18

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J.)

1. Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sanjay
Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional
Advocate General assisted by Sri Pankaj
Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed
praying for the following reliefs:

"a) To issue a writ order or
direction in the nature of quo-warranto
against the respondent No. 5 and holding
their appointment as illegal and which is
not in consonance with the statutory
provision as provided under Section 25A of
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.
in Brevity) (Act No. II of 1974) and further
show
cause
under
what
authority
respondent No. 5 is holding the post.

b) To issue a writ order or
direction in the nature of mandamus or
other appropriate writ/direction to place
the person who is suitable and eligible in
accordance with the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 (in brevity Act No. II of 1973).

c) To issue any order or direction
which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper under the circumstances of the
case."

3. This writ petition was heard on
several occasions. Finally on 15.3.2023
learned counsels for the parties have made
their submissions which were noted in the
order dated 15.3.2023 and the judgement
was reserved.

SUBMISSIONS:-

4. Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior
Advocate, submits as under :

i. The Directorate of Prosecution
already
established
by
the
State
Government vide Office Memorandum of
the Home Department No.7202/आठ-931(91)-79, dated 27.11.1980. Thus, sub
Section (1) of Section 25A stood satisfied
as the Directorate was already established.

ii. Sub Section (2) of Section 25A
provides for eligibility of Director of
Prosecution
and
Deputy
Director
of
Prosecution. It provides that a person shall
be eligible to be appointed as Director of
Prosecution
or
Deputy
Director
of
Prosecution only if he has been in practice
as an Advocate for not less than 10 years
and such appointment shall be made with
the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the
High Court. The Director of Prosecution or
the Additional Director of Prosecution, by
whatever name may be called, appointed by
the State Government as head of the
Directorate of Prosecution, is not eligible
and does not fulfill the basic eligibility as
provided under sub Section (2) of Section
25A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
7 All. Kishan Kumar Pathak Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1075
Therefore, the respondent no.5 does not
have the basic eligibility for appointment.
Hence a writ of quo warranto needs to be
issued.

iii. The State Government is
bound by the provisions of Section 25A
Cr.P.C. enacted by parliament, in the
absence of any specific provisions of law to
the
contrary
enacted
by
the
State
legislature. Reference is made to Section 5
of the Cr.P.C. which recognises this
proposition. Since State Government has
not made any amendment in Section
25A(2) Cr.P.C. and instead as per original
records produced, the State Government
itself took decision not to make any
amendment, therefore, the stand taken by
State respondents in the counter affidavit
that Section 25A Cr.P.C. is not applicable
in the State of U.P. is wholly baseless and
wholly misleading.

iv. Since the respondent no.5 is
holding a public office and he does not
have eligibility to hold the said post i.e.
post of Director of Prosecution/Additional
Director of Prosecution/Deputy Director of
Prosecution and, therefore, he has incurred
disqualification to continue to occupy the
post. Hence a writ of quo warranto needs to
be issued in view of the provisions of
Section 25A Cr.P.C. and the law laid down
by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
S.B. Shahane and others Vs. State of
Maharashtra and another AIR 1995 SC
1628 (paragraphs 6 to 15) and a recent
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated
10.01.2022 in Criminal Appeal No.1655 of
2021 (Jayben Vs. Tejas Kanubhai Zala and
another)
observing
that
Director
of
Prosecution
is
appointed
by
State
Government in exercise of powers under
Section 25A Cr.P.C. which stipulates a
minimum legal experience of not less than
ten years for a person to be eligible to be
Director
of
Prosecution
and
his
appointment shall be made with the
concurrence of the Chief Justice of the
High Court, a writ of quo warranto
deserves to be issued and appointment of
the respondent no.5 deserves to be quashed.

5. Sri Manish Goyal, learned
Additional Advocate General submits as
under :

i. The Directorate of Prosecution
was established by office memorandum
dated 27.11.1980 pursuant to the 14th Law
Commission Report.

ii. The State Government has not
implemented
Section
25A(1)
Cr.P.C..
After the decision taken by the State
Government on 28.02.2014 not to amend
Section 25A Cr.P.C., certain complaints
were received in the year 2017 and
thereupon an opinion of learned Advocate
General was sought on 09.11.2020 and
thereafter neither opinion was given nor
any decision upon the complaints was
taken. Thus, Section 25A has not been
enforced in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

iii. Provisions of Section 25A
Cr.P.C. are not mandatory but directory
and, therefore, it is not a compulsory
obligation of the State Government to abide
by the provisions of Section 25A. Reliance
is placed upon the Division Bench
Judgment of the Kerala High Court in Writ
(C) No.18844 of 2011 (Thankappan Vs.
State of Kerala) decided on 21.10.2011
(paragraph 4).

iv. Interpretation of sub Section
(1) of Section 25A Cr.P.C. is engaging
attention of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ
(C) No.923 of 2014 (All India Prosecutors
Association and another Vs. Union of India
through Cabinet Secretary and Ors.)
wherein question No.1 has been framed as
under :
1076 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"1. Whether the word 'may' in
sub-section 1 of Section 25A of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 should be
read as 'shall' and if so, is it mandatory for
each State to establish a directorate of
prosecution in terms of Section 25A?"

v. Since Section 25A Cr.P.C. has
not yet been enforced in the State of Uttar
Pradesh, therefore, the qualification of
Director of Prosecution, as provided under
sub Section (2) of Section 25A Cr.P.C.
shall not been attracted. Hence, the writ of
quo warranto cannot be issued.

vi. The respondent no.5 does not
belong to the cadre, as provided under sub
Section (2) of Section 25A Cr.P.C.
inasmuch the respondent no.5 is neither the
Director
of
Prosecution
nor
Deputy
Director of Prosecution but Additional
Director General of Prosecution. Hence, the
respondent no.5 need not possess the
eligibility, as provided under sub Section
(2) of Section 25A Cr.P.C.

vii. The judgement of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of S.B. Shahane
(supra) (paragraph nos. 10, 12 and 13) is
with reference to appointment of Assistant
Public Prosecutor in the Magistrate's Court.
Therefore, this judgement has no relevance
with regard to the eligibility of Director of
Prosecution or the Additional Director
General of Prosecution/respondent no.5.

viii. Section 5 of the Cr.P.C. does
not come in the aid of the petitioner
inasmuch as Office Memorandum dated
27.11.1980 is a law within the meaning of
the Article 13 of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, there being a law in the form
of
Office
Memorandum
dated
27.11.1980, the provisions of Section 5
Cr.P.C. would not be applicable.

ix. Unless the provision of
Section 25A Cr.P.C. is adopted by the
State Legislature, the said provision is not
enforceable in the State of Uttar
Pradesh. Hence, the State Government is
not bound by the provision of Section
25A
Cr.P.C.
inasmuch
as
field
of
legislation
regarding
Section
25A
is
referable to Entry 2 and 26 of List III -
Concurrent List of the VII Schedule to the
Constitution of India.

6. No other submissions have been
made by learned counsel for the parties
before us.

DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS:-

7. Having carefully considered the
submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record of the writ
petition as well as the original records as
produced
by
the
State
respondents,
discussion on the matter point wise, is as
follows:-

(A) Preliminary objection of State
respondents on account of pendency of
Writ C No. 923 of 2014 (All India
Prosecutors Association and another Vs.
Union
of
India
through
Cabinet
Secretary and others).

8. Learned Addl. Advocate General
has raised a preliminary objection that
interpretation of the word 'may' used in
sub-section (1) of Section 25A of the
Criminal
Procedure
Code
(hereinafter
referred to as the Cr.P.C.) is engaging
attention of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ
(C) No. 923 of 2014 and, therefore, this
court may not entertain this writ petition.

9. We do not agree with the
preliminary objection of the learned Addl.
Advocate General. In the State of Uttar
Pradesh a Directorate of Prosecution has
already been established by the State
Government which shall be discussed in
7 All. Kishan Kumar Pathak Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1077
the later part of this judgement. That apart,
against our order dated 1.3.2023 passed in
this writ petition, the State respondents
have filed SLP (Civil) Diary No. 9996 of
2023 (State of U.P. and others Vs. Kishan
Kumar Pathak and others), which has been
dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court by
order dated 13.3.2023. Besides this Section
25A Cr.P.C. has been enforced in the State
of U.P. Thus we do not find any substance
in the aforesaid objection raised by the
learned
Addl.
Advocate
General.
Therefore, the objection is rejected.

(B)
CREATION
OF
DIRECTORATE OF PROSECUTION,
UTTAR PRADESH:-

10. The Directorate of Prosecution
was established by the State Government
by Office Memorandum No. 7202/8/आठ-931(91)-79 dated 27.11.1980. As per the
aforesaid Office Memorandum, Director of
Prosecution is Head of the Department and
Legal Advisor and his duty includes to give
advice to the Police Department, District
Level Departments and to apprise State
Government
with
uptodate
status
of
prosecution
etc.
Dy.
Director
of
Prosecution is drawing and disbursing
officer who assist and advise the Director
of Prosecution in legal and administrative
matters. Apart from above, the Director and
Dy. Director are required to discharge
several
other
functions
relating
to
prosecution.
The
aforesaid
office
memorandum dated 27.11.1980 (without
annexures) is reproduced below:

"उत्तर प्रदेश शासन
गृह (पुकलस) अनुभाग-9
सिंख्या 7202/आठ-9-31(91)-79
लखनऊ, किनािंक 27 नवम्बर, 1980
कार्ाालर्-ज्ञाप

विषर्ः- अकभयोजन कनिेशालय, उिर प्रिेश की स्थापना।

अधोहस्ताक्षरी को यह कहने का कनिेश हुआ है कक िण्ड
प्रकक्रया सिंकहता, 1973 के लागू होने के बाि प्रभािी एिं वनष्पक्ष
अवभर्ोजन की दृवि से प्रिेश में एक स्वतन्त्र अकभयोजन कनिेशालय की
स्थापना का प्रश्न पयाथप्त समय से शासन के कवचाराधीन था। इस कसलकसले में
भारत के विवि आर्ोग की 14िीं ररपोर्ा में की गर्ी संस्तुवतर्ों एिं
शासन द्वारा गवित ऋवषरार् सवमवत की संस्तुवतर्ों पर गम्भीरता पूिाक
विचार करने के उपरान्त राज्र्पाल महोदर् ने उक्त संवहता की िारा
25 के अिीन कनयुक्त मैकजस्रेट, न्यायालयों में पैरवी करने, वाले सहायक
लोक अकभ-योजकों, (अकसस्टेंट पकललक प्रासीक्यूटसथ) के समस्त कायथ पर
प्रभावी कनयन्त्रण एविं पयथवेक्षण हेतु अलग से अवभर्ोजन वनदेशालर्,
वजसका मुख्र्ालर् लखनऊ में होगा, स्थावपत वकर्े जाने की
स्िीकृवत प्रदान कर दी है।

2- राज्यपाल महोिय कनिेशालय के मुख्यालय हेतु
अनुलग्नक-1 में तथा उसके क्षेत्रीय कायाथलयों में तथा कजला कायाथलयों के
कलए अनुलग्नक-2 में उकललकखत अस्थाई पिों को, उसके सम्मुख कनकिथष्ट
वेतनमानों में, पिों के भरे जाने की कतकथ जो इस आिेश के पूवथ की न होगी
से 28 फरवरी, 1981 तक, यकि उन्हें इसके पूवथ ही कबना ककसी सूचना
के समाप्त न कर किया जाये, सृकजत ककये जाने की भी स्वीकृकत प्रिान करते
हैं।

3- स्वीकृत पिों के धारकों को अपने पि के वेतनमान में
कमलने वाले वेतन के अकतररक्त सरकार द्वारा समय- समय पर स्वीकृत
महिंगाई एविं अन्य भिे जो भी अनुमन्य हों, िेय होंगे।

4- चूिंकक अकभयोजन कनिेशालय की स्थापना, अकधकारी
एविं कमथचारी वगथ के वेतन, भिों आकि पर होने वाले व्यय तथा अनुलग्नक3 में अिंककत स्टाफ कार, साज-सज्जा आकि के क्रय व अऩ्य मिों पर होने
वाले व्यय के कलये चालू कविीय वषथ 1980-81 के आय-व्ययक में कोई
प्राकवधान नही है और यह व्यय अत्यावश्यक एविं अपररहायथ है, अतः इस
प्रयोजन के कलये राज्य कवधान मण्डल के अनुमोिन की प्रत्याशा में श्री
राज्यपाल ने राज्य आककस्मकता कनकध से रूपया 12,68,000 (बारह
लाख अड़सठ हजार रूपये) केवल की धनराकश अकिम के रूप में आहररत
करने की भी स्वीकृकत प्रिान कर िी है। इस धनराकश की प्रकतपूकतथ वाि में
अनुपूरक मािंगों के माध्यम से की जायेगी।

5- साज-सज्जा, उपकरण, फनीचर, स्टाफ कार आकि का
क्रय कनिेशक, अकभयोजन कनिेशालय द्वारा कनधाथररत प्रकक्रया एविं कनयमों के
अऩुसार ककया जायेगा तथा क्रय ककये गये वस्तुओिं का कववरण वे यथासमय
शासन को सूकचत करेंगे तथा उसका लेखा जोखा कवकधवत् रखना सुकनकित
करेंगे।

6- अकभयोजन कनिेशालय का ढािंचा अनुलग्नक-4 में
किया गया है। तद्नुसार मुख्र्ालर् पर एक उप-वनदेशक अवभर्ोजन
वनदेशक की सहार्ता के वलर्े अन्र् सपोवर्िंग स्र्ाफ के साथ रहेगा।
प्रशासकीय सुकवधा के कलये प्रिेश को 4 क्षेत्रों लखनऊ, बरेली, वाराणसी
व आगरा में बााँट किया गया है। प्रत्येक क्षेत्र के अन्तगथत अनुलग्नक-4 में
कनकिथष्ट मण्डल व कजले सकम्मकलत रहेंगे।
1078 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7- अकभयोजन कनिेशक, उप कनिेश अकभयोजन
(मुख्यालय), क्षेत्रीय उप कनिेशक अकभयोजन, ज्येष्ठ अकभयोजन अकधकारी,
अकभयोजन अकधकारी तथा सहायक अकभयोजन अकधकारी के कतथव्य एविं
िाकयत्व अनुलग्नक-5 में किये हैं। ज्येष्ठ अकभयोजन अकधकाररयों,
अकभयोजन अकधकाररयों तथा सहायक अकभयोजन अकधकाररयों का वतथमान
स्वीकृत कनयतन अनुलग्नक 6 में किया गया है।

8- अकभयोजन कनिेशालय की स्थापना के फलस्वरूप
अकभयोजन शाखा के कलये पूवथ स्वीकृत सहायक अकभयोजन
अकधकारी/अकभयोजन अकधकारी/ज्येष्ठ अकभयोजन अकधकारी के समस्त पि
तथा ज्येष्ठ अकभयोजन अकधकाररयों के कायाथलयों के कलये 11 कजलों
(कजनके नाम अनुलग्नक-2 में इिंकगत है) मे स्वीकृत कायाथलय चपरासी के
पि तथा कायथरत समस्त अकधकारी/कमथचारी अकभयोजन कनिेशालय के
प्रशासकीय कनयन्त्रण में आ जायेंगे तथा उनसे सम्बकन्धत अकभलेखाकि
पुकलस महाकनरीक्षक द्वारा कनिेशालय को शीघ्राकतशीघ्र हस्तािंतररत ककये
जायेंगे।

9- वनदेशक अवभर्ोजन तथा उप वनदेशक
अवभर्ोजन के पदों पर वनर्ुवक्त तथा अविकारों के प्रवतवनर्मन एविं
अन्य नव सृकजत पिों पर कनयुकक्त की प्रकक्रया के संबंि में आदेश अलग
से जारी वकर्े जार्ेंगे।

10- नयी व्यवस्था के फलस्वरूप वषों से चली आ रही
पुरानी व्यवस्था, कजसके अन्तगथत पुकलस अधीक्षक, अकभयोजन
अकधकाररयों के कायथ पर कनयन्त्रण रखते थे, समाप्त हो जायेंगी। फलस्वरूप
कजला स्तर पर सहायक अकभयोजन अकधकाररयों एविं अकभयोजन
अकधकाररयों (प्रभारी अकभयोजन अकधकाररयों को छोड़कर) द्वारा मामलों
की कववेचना के सम्बन्ध में किये गये योगिान के बारे में वाकषथक मन्तव्य िेने
का अकधकार पुकलस अधीक्षक को होगा, ककन्तु अकभयोजन कायथ के बार में
कटप्पणी करने का अकधकार इन्हें न होगा। प्रकतवेिक अकधकारी के कलये यह
अकनवायथ होगा कक इस मन्तव्य को वह उनकी वाकषथक प्रकवकष्ट में अक्षरशः
शाकमल करेंगे तथा ज्येष्ठ अकभयोजन अकधकाररयों एविं प्रभारी अकभयोजन
अकधकाररयों के सम्बन्ध में प्रकतवेिक अकधकाररयों के कलये यह पयाथप्त होगा
कक वह पुकलस अधीक्षक की राय प्राप्त कर वाकषथक प्रकवकष्ट िेेेते समय
उसका समुकचत उपयोग करें।

11- अकभयोजन कनिेशालय की स्थापना के तुरन्त बाि ही
अकभयोजन अकधकाररयों के साहायताथथ पुकलस कवभाग में पूवथ स्वीकृत या
पूवथ कवद्यमान कलकपकीय तथा चतुथथ श्रेणी के पिों को आवश्यकतानुसार
बनाये रखने/ समाप्त करने/पुकलस कवभाग में जहािं तेजी से कजला फोसथ का
कवस्तार हो रहा है, समायोकजत करने के कवषय पर शासन द्वारा कवचार ककया
जायेगा।

12- उपयुथक्त के अकतररक्त अकभयोजन कनिेशालय के
सिंबिंध में कनम्नकलकखत कनणथय भी कलये गये हैं--

1- अकभयोजन कनिेशालय गृह कवभाग के अधीन होगा
और इसके अन्तगथत मैकजस्रेट न्यायालयों के अकभयोजन कायथ तथा सहायक
लोक
अकभयोजकों
(सहायक
अकभयोजन
अकधकारी/अकभयोजन
अकधकारी/ज्येष्ठ अकभयोजन अकधकारी) के समस्त कायथ कनयन्त्रण एविं
पयथवेक्षण का कायथ होगा।

2- वनदेशक अवभर्ोजन, उत्तर प्रदेश के पद पर उप
पुवलस महावनरीक्षक के स्तर के पुवलस सेिा के अविकारी की
वनर्ुवक्त की जार्ेगी पर वह पुकलस महाकनरीक्षक के कनयन्त्रण मे कायथ नही
करेगें और न ही पुकलस के अकधकारों का प्रयोग करेंगे।

3- कजन जनपिों में ज्येष्ठ अकभयोजन अकधकारी के पि
स्वीकृत हैं उनमें ज्येष्ठ अकभयोजन अकधकारी कजला प्रभारी अकधकारी होंगे
तथा अन्य कजलों में जहािं ज्येष्ठ अकभयोजन अकधकारी कनयुक्त नही है
वररष्ठतम् अकभयोजन अकधकारी प्रभारी अकधकारी होंगे।

4- नयी व्यवस्था को सफल एविं प्रभावी ढिंग से लागू करने
के कलये कजला स्तर पर कजला मैकजस्रेट की प्रभावशाली भूकमका रहेगी और
वह अकभयोजनकायों तथा अकभयोजन कायाथलय के अकधकाररयों को कायथ
पर प्रभावी कनयन्त्रण रखने में और उसमें पूणथ रुकच लेंगे। इस सम्बन्ध में
कनम्नािंककत उिरिाकयत्वों का कनवाथह भी पूरी तरह से सुकनकित करेंगेः--

अ-- कजलाकधकारी--जनपि में ज्येष्ठ अकभयोजन
अकधकाररयों पर तात्काकलक पयथवेक्षण (इमीकडएट सुपरवीजन) रखेंगे।

ब-- कजला स्तर पर अकभयोजन शाखा के अकधकाररयों के
आहरण एविं कवतरण अकधकारी कजलाकधकारी होंगे तथा इन अकधकाररयों के
वेतन आकि के आहरण एविं कवतरण का प्रबन्ध कजलाकधकारी कायाथलय द्वारा
ककया जायेगा।

स-- कजलाकधकारी सत्र न्यायालय में पैरवी करने वाले
लोक अकभयोजक और ज्येष्ठ अकभयोजन अकधकारी/अकभयोजन अकधकारी
प्रभारी के बीच समुकचत समन्वय सुकनकित करेगे, कजसका मुख्यतः सम्बन्ध
सत्र न्यायालय को सिंिकभथत मुकिमो के कलेन्डर, सत्र न्यायालयों में प्रेकषत
जमानत प्राथथना-पत्र सिंबिंधी अकभलेख, गवाहों के कलए अकभयोजन
अकधकारी के माध्यम से सम्मन जारी करवाने व अपील व कवमुकक्त ररपोटथ से
होगा।

13- उपयुथक्त मिों पर होने वाला व्यय प्रथमतः राज्य
आककस्मकता कनकध के नामे डाला जायेगा तथा बाि में .. कविीय वषथ
1980-81 के आय-व्ययक में अनुिान सिंख्या 19 के अधीन लेखा
शीषथक "214-न्याय प्रशासन-आयोजनेिर-क-कानूनी सलाहकार और
परामशथिाता--लोक अकभयोजन शाखा अकधष्ठान" के अन्तगथत सिंगत
प्राथकमक इकाइयों के नाम डाला जायेगा।

हरगोकवन्ि डबराल

सिंयुक्त सकचव। "

11. Duties and responsibilities of
Director and Dy. Director of Prosecution
have been provided in Annexure 5 to the
aforesaid
Office
Memorandum
dated
27.11.1980, as under:

"अनुलग्नक-5
अवभर्ोजन वनदेशक उत्तर प्रदेश के कत्ताव्र् एिं दावर्त्ि
7 All. Kishan Kumar Pathak Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1079

अवभर्ोजन वनदेशक प्रदेश के अवभर्ोजन संगिन के
अध्र्क्ष होंगे तथा मैकजस्रेट कोटथस में पैरवी करने वाले समस्त लोक
अवभर्ोजकों का प्रशासकीर् वनर्ंत्रण सम्पूणथ रूप से उनमे कनकहत होगा।

2- उनका स्तर विभागाध्र्ाक्ष का होगा तथा उन्हें व सभी
प्रशासकीय एविं कविीय अकधकार प्राप्त होंगे जो सामान्यतया एक
कवभागाध्यक्ष में प्रकतकनकहत होते हैं।

3- वह अपने कनिेशालय, क्षेत्रीय उपकनिेशकों के
कायाथलय तथा ज्येष्ठ अकभयोजन अकधकाररयों के कायाथलयों के अराजपकत्रत
कमथचाररयों, अकभयोजन अकधकाररयों तथा सहायक अकभयोजन अकधकारी
के वनर्ुवक्त अविकारी होंगे तथा इन श्रेवणर्ों के कमाचाररर्ों के
स्थानान्तरण तैनाती आवद करने का उन्हें अविकार होगा।

4- उनका प्रशासकीर् वनर्ंत्रण उपकनिेशक अकभयोजन
(मुख्यालय) क्षेत्रीय उपकनिेशकों तथा ज्येष्ठ अकभयोजन अकधकाररयों के
ऊपर भी रहेगा और वे इन अकधकाररयों की चररत्र पंवचकाओं में उनके
कायथ तथा आचरण के बारे मे िावषाक गोपनीर् ररपोर्ा अंवकत करेंगे ि
उन्हें शासन को अवन्तम अनुमोदन हेतु भेजेंगे।

5- वह विविक मामलों में फौजदारी कार्ािाही के
वकसी भी स्तर पर (तफतीश के स्तर को सकम्मकलत करते हुए) जकटल व
महत्वपूवथ मामलों जैसे षड़यन्त्र, जालसाजी, घोखाधड़ी कजसमे साक्ष्य
पररकस्थकतयों व उपललध लेखा अकभलेखों पर आधाररत हो, में पुवलस
विभाग तथा शासन के वजला स्तरीर् विभागों को आिश्र्कतानुसार
परामशा देंगे।

6- ऐसे समस्त कवकधक/प्रशासकीय मामले जो क्षेत्रीर्
उपवनदेशक तथा ज्र्ेष्ठ अवभर्ोजन अविकाररर्ों द्वारा परामशथ/ आिेशों
के कलए भेजे जाये उनमे परामशा/आदेश िेगें।

6(ए)- पुवलस संगिन के राज्र् स्तर पर विवि
सलाहकार होंगे।

7- प्रदेश के समस्त अवभर्ोजन कार्ाालर्ों का
वनरीक्षण करेंगे ि अवभर्ोजन की वस्थवत से शासन को आिविक
वििरण भेजकर अिगत करार्ेंगे।

8- ऐसे अन्य कायथ जो शासन द्वारा समय-समय पर सौंपे
जायें।
उप वनदेशक (मुख्र्ालर्) के कत्ताव्र् एिं दावर्त्ि

1- अकभयोजन कनिेशालय के अकधष्ठान के आहरण तथा
वितरण अविकारी होंगे।

2- कवकधक तथा प्रशासकीय मामले में वनदेशक की
सहार्ता करेंगे व उन्हें उकचत परामशथ िेगे।

3- कनिेशालय के अधीनस्थ कमथचाररयों के चररत्र एविं
आचरण की वाकषथक प्रकवकष्टयों के ररपोकटिंग अकधकारी होंगे तथा कनिेशक को
उन्हें अनुमोिनाथथ प्रस्तुत करेंगे।

4- वह अन्य कायथ कजन्हें कनिशक द्वारा उन्हें समय-समय
पर सौंपा जायेगा।
क्षेत्रीर् उपवनदेशक अवभर्ोजन के कत्ताव्र् एिं दावर्त्ि

1- अपने कायाथलय के कायथलयाध्यक्ष होंगे।

2- अपने अधीनस्थ कमथचाररयों के अकधष्ठान के आहरण
तथा कवतरण अकधकारी होंगे।

3- अपने क्षेत्र के समस्त ज्येष्ठ अकभयोजन अकधकाररयों
पर उनका प्रशासकनक कनयिंत्रण रहेगा।

4- ऐसे जकटल मामलों कजनमें ज्येष्ठ अकभयोजन अकधकारी
द्वारा उनसे परामशथ मािंगा जाये, उन्हें अपना परामशथ िेंगे।

5-
अपने
क्षेत्र
के
ज्येष्ठ
अकभयोजन
अकधकाररयों/अकभयोजन अकधकाररयों के कायथ का समय-समय पर कनरीक्षण
करेंगे व क्षेत्र के अकभयोजन की कस्थकत से अकभयोजन कनिेशक को
आकवकधक कववरण भेजकर अवगत करायेंगे।

6- क्षेत्र के ज्येष्ठ अकभयोजन अकधकाररयों की चररत्र
पिंकजकाओिं में उनके कायथ तथा आचरण की वाकषथक गोपनीय ररपोटथ
प्रकतवेंिक अकधकारी के रूप में अिंककत करेंगे तथा अनुमोिन हेतु उन्हें
अकभयोजन कनिेंशक को भेजेंगे। इसके अकतररक्त क्षेत्र के अकभयोजन सहायक
अकभयोजन/अकधकाररयों की वाकषथक प्रकवकष्टयों के अनुमोिन अकधकारी होंगे।

6-(ए) संबंवित उप पुवलस महावनरीक्षकों के विवि
सलाहकार होंगे।

7- ऐसे कायथ जो शासन अथवा कनिेशक द्वारा समय-समय
पर सौंपे जायें।
ज्येष्ठ अकभयोजन अकधकाररयों के किथव्य एविं िाकयत्व

1- ज्येष्ठ अकभयोजन अकधकारी अपने कजले के अकभयोजन
अकधकाररयों सहायक अकभयोजन अकधकाररयों व अन्य अधीनस्थ के प्रभारी
अकधकारी होंगे।

2- कजले के समस्त अकभयोजन अकधकाररयों/सहायक
अकभयोजन अकधकाररयों तथा अपने कायाथलय स्टाफ के आहरण व कवतरण
अकधकारी होंगे।

3- कजले के अकभयोजन अकधकाररयों/सहायक अकभयोजन
अकधकाररयों के कायथ तथा आचरण की वाकषथक गोपनीय ररपोटथ अिंककत
करेंगे तथा उन्हें अनुमोिनाथथ क्षेत्रीय उपकनिेशक अकभयोजन को भेजेंगे।

4- जकटल व महत्वपूणथ फौजिारी वािो की पैरवी स्वयिं
मैकजस्रेट कोटथ में करेंगे तथा अपने अधीनस्थ अकभयोजन
अकधकाररयों/सहायक अकभयोजन अकधकाररयों को मागथिशथन िेंगे तथा उनके
कायथ का समय-समय पर कनरीक्षण करेंगे और कजले की अकभयोजन की
कस्थकत के सम्बन्ध में आवकधक कववरण क्षेत्रीय उप कनिेशक अकभयोजन व
अकभयोजन कनिेशक को भेजा करेंगे।

5- वह कजला पुकलस अधीक्षक को उन सभी फौजिारी
वािों में परामशथ िेंगे कजन्हें कजला पुकलस अधीक्षक द्वारा उन्हें परामशथ हेतु
भेजा जायेगा।

5(ए)- रेंज मुख्यालय पर पुकलस उप महाकनरीक्षक के
कवकध सलाहकार होंगे।

6- ऐसे अन्य कायथ जो समय-समय पर क्षेत्रीय उप कनिेशक
अथवा कनिेशक व कजला मैकजस्रेट द्वारा सौपा जाये।

नोट- कजन कजलों में अकभयोजन अकधकारी प्रभारी
अकधकारी होंगे वहािं पर अकभयोजन अकधकारी द्वारा उन सभी किथव्यो व
िाकयत्वों का कनवथहन ककया जायेगा कजनका सविंहन अन्य कजलों में ज्येष्ठ
अकभयोजन अकधकाररयों द्वारा ककया जाता है।

अवभर्ोजन अविकारी/सहार्क अवभर्ोजन अविकारी के कताव्र्
1080 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1- मकजस्रेट कोटथस में फौजिारी वािों को शासन की ओर
से पैरवी करना।

2- ज्येष्ठ अकभयोजन अकधकारी के कायथ में सहायता िेना
व उनके मागथिशथन में कायथ करना।

3- कजला पुकलस अधीक्षक को अकभयोजन के मामलों में
कवकधक परामशथ िेना।

4- व्यकक्त व माल की कशनाख्त कायथवाही में सहायता
करना।

5- िोष मुक्त (Aquittal) ररपोटथ तैयार करना।"

12. From perusal of the afore quoted
office memorandum dated 27.11.1980 it is
evident that Directorate of Prosecution
has been established in the State of U.P.
as an administrative decision pursuant to
the recommendations of the 14th report of
the Law Commission and the report of
Rishi Rai Committee.

13. The background of enactment of
Section 25A Cr.P.C. has been briefly
summarised by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
National Human Rights Commission Vs.
State of Gujarat and others (2009) 6 SCC
767 (paragraphs 23 to 30), as under:

"23.
The
role
of
public
prosecutors in ensuring a fair trial is of
paramount importance. This Court in S.B.
Shahane v. State of Maharashtra, 1995
Supp (3) SCC 37 had stressed on the
desirability of separation of prosecution
agency from investigation agency. It was
observed
that
such
Assistant
Public
Prosecutors could not be allowed to
continue as personnel of the Police
Department and to continue to function
under the control of the head of the Police
Department. The State Governments were
directed to constitute a separate cadre of
Assistant Public Prosecutors by creating a
separate prosecution Department making
its head directly responsible to the State
Government.

24.
Many
commonwealth
countries
like
Australia
have
a
Commonwealth
Director
of
Public
Prosecutions, which was set up by the
Director of Public Prosecutions Act, 1983
and started operations in 1984. The nine
States and territories of Australia also have
their own DPPs. Ultimate authority for
authorizing prosecutions lies with the
Attorney General. However, since that is a
political post, and it is desired to have a
non-political (public service) post carry out
this function in most circumstances, the
prosecutorial powers of the AG are
normally delegated to the DPP. However,
in South Australia the AG may direct the
DPP to prosecute or not to prosecute. This
is a very rare occurrence. It is common for
those who hold the office of Commonwealth
or State DPP later to be appointed to a
high judicial office.

25. In Canada, each province's
Crown
Attorney
Office
(Canada)
is
responsible for the conduct of criminal
prosecutions. In Ontario, local Crown
Attorney in the Criminal Law Division is in
charge of criminal cases. Only British
Columbia, Nova Scotia and Quebec (a
civil code jurisdiction) have a Director of
Public
Prosecutions
office.
Recent
legislation passed by Parliament split the
conduct of federal prosecutions from the
Department of Justice (Canada), and
created the Office of the Director of Public
Prosecutions (officially to be called as
Public Prosecution Service of Canada).
This legislation came into effect from 1212-2006.
The
Director
of
Public
Prosecutions of Hong-Kong, China heads
the
prosecutions
Division
of
the
Department of Justice, which is responsible
for prosecuting trials and appeals on
behalf
of
the
Hong
Kong
Special
Administrative Region, providing legal
advice to law enforcement agencies, acting
7 All. Kishan Kumar Pathak Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1081
on behalf of the Secretary for Justice in the
institution of criminal proceedings, and
providing advice and assistance to bureaux
and departments in relation to any criminal
law aspects of proposed legislation. DPP is
superintended by the Secretary for Justice,
who is also accountable for the decisions of
DPP.

26. The Director of Public
Prosecutions in the Republic of Ireland
has been responsible for prosecution, in the
name of the People, of all indictable
criminal offences in the Republic of Ireland
since the enactment of the Prosecution of
Offences Act 1974. Before 1974, all crimes
and offences were prosecuted at the suit of
the Attorney General. DPP may also issue
a certificate that a case should be referred
to the Special Criminal Court; a juryless
trial court usually reserved for terrorists
and organized criminals.

27. In South Africa public
prosecutions
are
conducted
by
an
independent National Director of Public
Prosecutions (NDPP). The NDPP is
supported by a Chief Executive Officer,
Marion
Sparg,
Deputies,
Regional
Directors of Public Prosecutions (DPPs),
and
several
Special
Directors.
The
National Director is also the head of the
controversial
Directorate
of
Special
Operations (DSO) - commonly known as
the Scorpions - which deals with priority
and organized crime. In 2005, the unit
instituted proceedings against the country's
Deputy President, Jacob Zuma, leading to
his dismissal.

28. In England and Wales, the
office
of
the
Director
of
Public
Prosecutions was first created in 1880 as
part of the Home Office, and had its own
department from 1908. DPP was only
responsible for the prosecution of a small
number of major cases until 1986 when
responsibility
for
prosecutions
was
transferred to a new Crown Prosecution
Service with DPP as its head. He/she is
appointed by the Attorney General for
England and Wales. In Northern Ireland a
similar situation existed, and DPP now
heads the Public Prosecution Service for
Northern Ireland.

29. The Law Commission in
1958 had recommended that a Director of
Prosecutions be set up having its own
cadre, though this recommendation was not
included in the Code then. Again in 1996
the Law Commission in its 154th report
identified as Independent Prosecuting
Agency as one of the several areas within
the Code which required redesigning and
restructuring.
The
Law
Commission
supported
most
of
the
proposed
amendments to the Code as contained in
the proposed Code of Criminal Procedure
Amendment Bill, 1994. Recommendations
related to the structure of a Directorate of
Prosecutions at the State-level, to be
adopted by a State Government in the event
it decided to set up a cadre of Prosecutors.
The
Law
Commission
further
recommended that the structure of Statelevel Directorates of Prosecution be given
statutory status through an amendment to
the Code. Despite the absence of such a
requirement and inadequacy of the
Provisions in the Code a number of states
mainly, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar,
Goa,
Himachal
Pradesh,
Karnataka,
Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Tamil
Nadu and Uttaranchal, established a
Directorate of Prosecution.

30. By an amendment in 2006,
Section 25-A was inserted in the Code,
which categorically legislated for the
creation of a Directorate of Prosecution in
every state:

"25-A.
Directorate
of
Prosecution.-(1) The State Government
may establish a Directorate of Prosecution
1082 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
consisting of a Director of Prosecution and
as many Deputy Directors of Prosecution
as it thinks fit.

(2) A person shall be eligible to
be appointed as a Director of Prosecution
or a Deputy Director of Prosecution, only
if he has been in practice as an advocate
for not less than ten years and such
appointment shall be made with the
concurrence of the Chief Justice of the
High Court.

(3) The Head of the Directorate
of Prosecution shall be the Director of
Prosecution, who shall function under the
administrative control of the Head of the
Home Department in the State.

(4) Every Deputy Director of
Prosecution shall be subordinate to the
Director of Prosecution.

(5) Every Public Prosecutor,
Additional Public Prosecutor and Special
Public Prosecutor appointed by the State
Government under sub-section (1), or as
the case may be, sub-section (8), of Section
24 to conduct cases in the High Court shall
be
subordinate
to
the
Director
of
Prosecution.

(6) Every Public Prosecutor,
Additional Public Prosecutor and Special
Public Prosecutor appointed by the State
Government under sub-section (3), or as
the case may be, sub-section (8), of Section
24 to conduct cases in District Courts and
every
Assistant
Public
Prosecutor
appointed under sub-section (1) of Section
25 shall be subordinate to the Deputy
Director of Prosecution.

(7) The powers and functions of
the Director of Prosecution and the Deputy
Directors of Prosecution and the areas for
which each of the Deputy Directors of
Prosecution have been appointed shall be
such as the State Government may, by
notification, specify.

(8) The provisions of this section
shall not apply to the Advocate General for
the State while performing the functions of
a Public Prosecutor."

14. Since, despite recommendations
of the Law Commission and also despite
judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
S.B. Shahane v. State of Maharashtra AIR
1985 SC 1628 several States have not
established Directorate of Prosecution
while some of the States including the
State of Uttar Pradesh have established a
Directorate of Prosecution therefore, so
as to give statutory status to the
Directorate
of
Prosecution,
the
Parliament inserted Section 25A in
Cr.P.C. by Section 4 of the Code of
Criminal Proseducre (Amendment) Act,
2005 (No. 25 of 2005) which received
assent of the President on 23.6.2005 and
was enforced by Notification No. S. O.
923(E) dated 21.6.2006 w.e.f. 23.6.2006.

(C) Whether Section 25A Cr.P.C. is
applicable and enforced in the State of
Uttar Pradesh?

15. Section 1(2) Cr.P.C.