Role, Duties & Powers of Public Prosecutor, of Court, and of Private Counsel

Role, Duties & Powers of Public Prosecutor, of Court, and of Private Counsel 

Relevant Provisions of Law

1. Section 24:- Appointment of Public Prosecutor
2. Section 225:- Trial to be conducted by Public Prosecutor
3. Section 226:- Opening case for prosecution
4. Section 301:- Appearance by Public Prosecutor
5. Section 321:- Withdrawl from prosecution
6. Section 401:- High Court’s powers of revision
7. Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act:- Order of examination, Direction of reexamination

Basic Principles of Law

1. Public Prosecutor has the right to give up unnecessary and to drop won over witnesses.
2. Public Prosecutor has the right to interview the witness to know his stand.
3. Court cannot direct the Public Prosecutor to tender all the witnesses for examination.
4. Public Prosecutor has the right to re-examine the witness in detail.
5. Victim has a right to engage a private counsel.
6. a) Private Counsel cannot replace the public prosecution.
7. b) Private Counsel cannot address arguments before the Court.
8. c) Private Counsel cannot cross-examine the defence witnesses
9. Public Prosecutor has the right to withdraw from the prosecution of the case.
10. a) Notice to the complainant is not mandatory.
11. b) Complainant has no locus-standi to interfere in the exercise of the discretion of Public Prosecutor to withdraw from prosecution.
12. However, in such a situation the complainant can challenge the order of the government vide which the Public Prosecutor was directed to withdraw from prosecution. Public Prosecutor is a statutory office of high regard. He does not represent the investigation agencies but the state. A public prosecutor is not expected to show a thirst to reach the case in the conviction of accused somehow or the other irrespective of the true facts involved in the case. He has a wider set of duties than to merely ensure that the accused is punished, the duties of ensuring fair play in the proceedings, all relevant facts are brought before the Court in order for the determination of truth and justice for all parties including the victims.

Rights of the Public Prosecutor

1) To give up unnecessary and to drop won over witnesses. Public Prosecutor has the right to interview the witness to know his stand. 

One most important decision of the Supreme Court

A Four Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Masalti v/s State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 202, firstly laid down this principle of law while holding as under:-

Para “15….. It is not unknown that where serious offences like the present are committed and a large number of accused persons are tried, attempts are made either to terrorise or win over prosecution witnesses, and if the prosecutor honestly and bona fide believes that some of his witnesses have been won over, it would be unreasonable to insist that he must tender such witnesses before the Court.”

This decision is repeatedly followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court itself as well as by the Hon’ble High Court. Some of these are mentioned as under:-

1. i) Bava Hazee v/s State of Kerala AIR 1974 SC 902,
2. ii) Dalbir Kaur V/s State of Punjab, 1976 (4) SCC 158

In case Hukum Singh v/s State of Rajasthan 2001 Cri.L.J. 511

Brief Facts of the case

It was a case of murder. On the day of occurrence deceased alighted from a bus near his house and was proceedings to his house. His son was following him. The accused who were four in number were present at the bus stop variously armed. On sighting the deceased one among the accused made an exhortation to finish him off and other accused fired his pistol which hit the deceased on this back. Victim fell on the ground. Son of the deceased rushed to rescew the deceased. Hearing the commotion the wife of deceased also reached at the spot. All the accused assaulted both of them also. Then the assailants dragged the deceased along the ground and brought him to their courtyard. They made a pyre with fire wood splinters and put the body of the deceased on it and set it a blazed while son and wife of the deceased were looking on aghast. In the FIR it was also mentioned that two other persons also saw the occurrence.

During trial the Public Prosecutor examined son and wife of the deceased as witnesses and gave up other two witnesses as they were not to support the prosecution version. The Trial Court acquitted all the accused mainly on the ground that Public Prosecutor had not tendered all the witnesses before the Court for deposition. It was also held that by withholding independent eye-witnesses the prosecution has caused prejudice to the accused. The Trial Court was also of the view that interview of the witnesses by the Public Prosecutor to know their stand was also illegal. During appeal the High Court did not agree with these findings of the Trial Court and reversed the order of acquittal and convicted some of the accused for the offence of murder.

Feeling aggrieved, the convicted accused filed appeal in the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court 

Plea of the accused

One contention of the Defence Counsel was that Public Prosecutor was bound to produce all the witnesses before the Court for deposition. Another contention was that Public Prosecutor has no right to interview the witnesses before producing them in the Court.

Questions of Law

1. Whether public prosecutor can be insisted to tender all the witnesses before the Court? 

2. Whether public prosecutor has the right to drop un-necessary/won over witness?
3. Whether public prosecutor has the right to interview the witnesses to know his stand?

Findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

While deciding this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the following principles of law:-

1. Court cannot direct the PP to tender all the witnesses.

While holding so, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:-

Para “14. When the case reaches the stage envisaged in S. 231 of the Code the Sessions Judge is obliged “to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution.” It is clear from the said Section that the Public Prosecutor is expected to produce evidence “in support of the prosecution” and not in derogation of the prosecution case. At the said stage the Public Prosecutor would be in a position to take a decision as to which among the persons cited are to be examined. If there are too many witnesses on the same point the Public Prosecutor is at liberty to choose two or some among them alone so that the time of the Court can be saved from repetitious depositions on the same factual aspects. That principle applies when there are too many witnesses cited if they all had sustained injuries at the occurrence. The Public Prosecutor in such cases is not obliged to examine all the injured witnesses. If he is satisfied by examining any two or three of them, it is open to him to inform the Court that he does not propose to examine the remaining persons in that category. This will help not only the prosecution for relieving itself of the strain of adducing repetitive evidence on the same point but also helps the Court considerably in lessening the workload. Time has come to make every effort possible to lessen the workload, particularly those courts crammed with cases, but without impairing the cause of justice.”

1. The Public Prosecutor is not bound to examine each and every witness cited by the police. He has the right to drop unnecessary and won over witnesses.

While holding so, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:-

Para “15. The situation in a case where the prosecution cited two categories of witnesses to the occurrence, one consisting of persons closely related to the victim and the other consisting of witnesses who have no such relation, the Public Prosecutor’s duty to the Court may require him to produce witnesses from the latter category also subject to his discretion to limit to one or two among them. But if the Public Prosecutor got reliable information that any one among that category would not support the prosecution version he is free to state in court about that fact and skip that witness being examined as a prosecution witness. It is open to the defence to cite him and examine him as defence witness. The decision in this regard has to be taken by the public Prosecutor in a fair manner…”

1. Public Prosecutor has the right to interview the witness to know his stand.

While holding so, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:-

Para “14….He can interview the witness before hand to enable him to know well in advance the stand which that particular person would be adopting when examined as a witness in court.” 

2. Public Prosecutor has the right to re-examine the witness in detail. Court cannot direct the Public Prosecutor to confine his question to ambiguities. The Court can also not direct the Public Prosecutor to ask a limited number of questions. Public Prosecutor has the right to get the matter referred in the cross- examination clarified from the witness.

In case Rammi @ Rameshwar v/s State of Madhya Pradesh, 1999 (4) RCR Criminal 246

Brief Facts of the case

It was a case of murder. At the time of commission of crime, the victim was travelling in a bus. The accused came to know about this and they boarded the bus on the way. After the vehicle moved for some distance, assailants mounted attack on the deceased with chopper and knives. After accomplishing the object all the accused alighted from the bus and escaped from the scene. The driver of the bus drove the vehicle to the police station. FIR was lodged on the basis of the statement of the conductor of the bus. The accused were arrested and after interrogation the weapons used for the murder were recovered by the Investigating Officer. After completion of investigation chargesheet was presented in the Court.

During Trial the driver of the bus was examined as PW-12 and Investigating Officer as PW-13. There were major discrepancies between the statements of these witnesses. As per PW-13 the accused was arrested on the next date of occurrence and weapons were recovered thereafter. But as per statement of PW-12 the accused were arrested on the same day. Though there was an opportunity with the Public Prosecutor to elucide the ambiguity and to get the explanation from the witnesses about this material discrepancies the Public Prosecutor did not avail the opportunity, as he was of the view that during reexamination only ambiguities occurred in the cross examination can be clarified. During re-examination, he was authorized only to ask a limited number of questions. The Trial Court acquitted all the accused on the basis of this and some other discrepancies.

During appeal a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court convicted two out of the three accused and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment. The convicted accused filed appeal in the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Plea of the accused

One contention of the accused was that while re-examining a witness, the Public Prosecutor is confined to ask questions only to clarify the ambiguity.

Questions of Law

1. Whether the right of PP while re-examining a witness is only confined to clarification of an ambiguity?
2. Whether any matter referred in cross-examination can also be got explained in re-examination?

Findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the PP has the right to reexamine the witness in detail, and that re-examination cannot be confined to clarification to ambiguities and that the PP has the right to get any matter referred in cross-examination explained from the witness during re-examination.

While holding so, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:-

Para “17. There is an erroneous impression that re-examination should be confined to clarification of ambiguities which have been brought down in cross-examination. No doubt, ambiguities can be resolved through re-examination. But that is not the only function of the re-examiner. If the party who called the witness feels that explanation is required for any matter referred to in cross-examination he has the liberty to put any question in re-examination to get the explanation. The Public Prosecutor should formulate his questions for that purpose. Explanation may be required either when ambiguity remains regarding any answer elicited during crossexamination or even otherwise. If the Public Prosecutor feels that certain answers require more elucidation from the witness he has the freedom and the right to put such questions as he deems necessary for that purpose, subject of course to the control of the court in accordance with the other provisions. But the court cannot direct him to confine his questions to ambiguities alone which arose in crossexamination.

It was further observed as under:-

“18. Even if the Public Prosecutor feels that new matters should be elicited from the witness he can do so, in which case the only requirement is that he must secure permission of the court. If the Court thinks that such new matters are necessary for proving any material fact, courts must be liberal in granting permission to put necessary questions.

“19……There is no warrant that re-examination should be limited to one or two questions. If the exigency requires any number of questions can be asked in reexamination.”

1. Guidelines given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the Public Prosecutor.

How Public Prosecutor can perform his duty efficiently, while re-examiniing a witness, the Hon’ble Supreme Court gave the following guidelines:-

“19. A Public Prosecutor who is attentive during cross- examination cannot but be sensitive to discern which answer in cross-examination requires explanation. An efficient Public Prosecutor would gather up such answers falling from the mouth of a witness during cross-examination and formulate necessary questions to be put in reexamination. 

Right of a Victim to engage a Private Counsel

U/s 301(2) of Cr.P.C, the complainant has right to engage a private Counsel.

Rights of the Private Counsel

However, the rights of the Private Counsel are limited.

1. Private Counsel cannot replace the Public Prosecutor

In case Janakiramaiah Chetty v/s A.K. Parthasarathi, 2002 Cri.L.J.4062

Brief Facts of the case

Brief facts of the case are that a case U/s 325, 331 & 120-B IPC was pending in the Court of Sessions Judge. The complainant requested the Trial Court that a number of connected civil cases are also pending in various Courts. His Advocate is conducting those cases and is well conversant with the facts of the present case also. He sought permission from the Court to engage a Counsel to prosecute the case. Request of the complainant was declined by the Trial Court.

Feeling aggrieved, the complainant filed a revision petition in Hon’ble High Court.

Proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court

Plea of the complainant

One contention of the Counsel of the complainant was that the complainant was fully competent to engage a private Counsel to prosecute the case.

Question of Law

Whether a Private Counsel engaged by the complainant can replace by the Public Prosecutor?

Findings of the Hon’ble High Court

The Hon’ble High Court held that private Counsel cannot replace the Public Prosecutor.

While holding so, the Hon’ble High Court observed as under:-

Para “10. From the above, it is very clear that the aforesaid provision under S. 225, Cr. P.C. specifically contemplates that the prosecution shall be conducted by a public prosecutor in every trial before a Court of session. Even the use of the expression “shall” also makes it mandatory and absolute one without there being any exception. Further, the same is reiterated under S. 301(1) Cr. P.C. which allows the appearance of the public prosecutor to plead without any written authority before any Court. However, under sub-section (2) thereof, it only contemplates that any private person can instruct a pleader who can act on the direction of the public prosecutor and also submit written arguments with the permission of the Court. Therefore, it is amply clear that the role of a public prosecutor in such a case where a private pleader steps in is not totally obliterated. No such person who has been permitted can virtually take over the reins of the public prosecutor. Ultimately, it is the public prosecutor alone who has to conduct the entire prosecution and the other pleader can only assist the public prosecutor. Having regard to the fact that the Public Prosecutor represents the State, which is the prosecuting authority for all the criminal trials, it is the exclusive prerogative of the State to conduct such prosecution through its agent viz., the public prosecutor and, therefore, no other person much less any other advocate has any locus or any right to plead on behalf of the prosecution and conduct the case.” 

2. Private Counsel cannot address arguments before the Court

In case Manmohan Lal Sachdev v/s State, 2000 (2) RCR Criminal 523

Brief Facts of the case

The complainant of this case sought permission from the Trial Court that his counsel be allowed to address arguments before the Court. This request was accepted and the Private Counsel was allowed to address the arguments. The accused challenged this order in the Hon’ble High Court.

Proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court

Plea of the accused

One contention of the Defence Counsel was that a private Counsel has no right to address arguments before the Court.

Question of Law

Whether a Private Counsel engaged by the complainant can address arguments before the Court?

Findings of the Delhi High Court

While setting aside the order of the Trial Court, Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that Private Counsel cannot address arguments before the Court. He may with the permission of the Court, submit the written arguments after the evidence is closed in the case.

3. Private Counsel cannot cross-examine the defence witnesses

In case Kuldeep Singh v/s State of Punjab, 1996 Cri.L.J. 1619

Brief Facts of the case

The accused in this case were facing charges U/s 302 IPC. A DSP and a doctor appeared as defence witnesses. The Public Prosecutor did not cross-examine these witnesses.

Feeling aggrieved the complainant moved an application with the request to cross examine these witnesses through his Private Counsel. This application was rejected by the Trial Court. The complainant filed a revision petition in the Hon’ble High Court.

Proceedings before the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court

Plea of the complainant

One contention of the Counsel of the complainant was that the Public Prosecutor has not performed his duty properly. His Counsel may be allowed to cross examine the defence witnesses.

Question of Law

Whether a Counsel engaged by a complainant can cross examine the defence witnesses?

Findings of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court

1. The Hon’ble High Court held that Private Counsel has no right tocross examine the defence witnesses.

While holding so, the Hon’ble High Court observed as under:-

Para “5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. In terms of Section 301

(2) of the Code, a pleader engaged by a private party cannot plead though he can act and that too under the directions of the Public Prosecutor. In view of this, normally, a counsel representing the complainant party cannot conduct the prosecution and he can only assist the Public Prosecutor in prosecuting the case and file written arguments at the end of the arguments with the permission of the Court……”

1. Direction to the Public Prosecutor to cross examines the defence witnesses with the help of the Counsel of the complainant.

Important Note

In the present case, the Public Prosecutor had abdicated his functions by not putting questions to the defence witnesses in cross-examination. While keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice Hon’ble High Court directed the Public Prosecutor to cross examine the defence witnesses with the assistance of the Counsel of the complainant. While allowing the cross-examination and by giving the above directions to the Public Prosecutor, the Hon’ble High Court observed as under:-

Para “7. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above mentioned judgments and keeping in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it would be in the interest of justice that the aforesaid defence witnesses are cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor again with the assistance of the learned counsel for the complainant. Accordingly the impugned order dated 3rd May, 1995 is set aside and it is directed that the above mentioned two defence witnesses be cross-examined again by the learned Public Prosecutor with the assistance of the learned counsel for the complainant. Since the case is old one, the parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 27th November, 1995. The learned trial Court is directed to fix an early date for cross-examination of the said two witnesses and dispose of the case preferably within two months.”

                                                                 Part-B

Withdrawal from Prosecution

The Public Prosecutor who is conducting the trial has vast powers to withdraw the case from prosecution. But these powers are not arbitrary. The Public Prosecutor has to follow some principles before taking the decision of withdrawl from prosecution. The complainant of the case has no right to interfere with the decision of the Public Prosecutor. If he feels aggrieved, he can challenge the order of the government vide which the Public Prosecutor was directed to withdraw from prosecution.

Principles governing the withdrawal from prosecution by the Public Prosecutor. 

1. Government has power to order the Public prosecutor to withdraw from prosecution.
2. B. Public prosecutor has to apply his mind independently before filing application for withdrawl from prosecution.
3. Notice to the complainant is not mandatory.
4. D. Right of the complainant:- However, In such a situation the complainant can challenge the order of the government.

In case K.V.V. Krishna Rao v/s State of A.P. 2003 Cri.L.J.2894

Brief Facts of the case

On the basis of the complaint of a de facto complainant the present case was registered under Sections 147, 148, 447, 438, 307, 323 read with Section 506 IPC against 31 persons. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was presented in the Court of Judicial Magistrate. Before the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions, the Assistant Public Prosecutor filed a petition U/s 321 of Cr.P.C. seeking permission of the Court to withdraw from prosecution. In the petition, the Assistant Public Prosecutor along with some other grounds of withdrawl from prosecution also mentioned the order of the government vide which he was directed to withdraw from the prosecution. The Judicial Magistrate granted permission and discharged the accused.

Feeling aggrieved, the complainant challenged the order of the government.

Proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court

Plea of the complainant

One contention of the Counsel of the complainant was that government has no jurisdiction to order the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from prosecution. The Public Prosecutor was to apply his own mind before filing the application for withdrawal from prosecution. Another contention was that complainant had the right of hearing before the passing of the order of discharge.

Questions of Law

1. Whether government has jurisdiction to issue orders to the P.P. to withdraw from Prosecution?
2. Whether application of mind of P.P. while filing the withdrawal application is mandatory?
3. Whether before issuing the impugned order, notice to the Complainant is mandatory?
4. Whether complainant of the case has a right to challenge the order of the Court vide which the government directed the PP to withdraw from prosecution?

Findings of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court

After considering the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and other High Courts, the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court answered these questions as under:-

1. Government has power to order the Public prosecutor to withdraw from prosecution.

Para “11. In view of the above legal position and also in view of the provisions of Section 321 of Cr. P.C., the first contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the Government has no power to issue G.O. instructing the Public Prosecutor or the Assistant Public Prosecutor to withdraw from prosecution, after the charge-sheet is filed, cannot be accepted and the same is accordingly rejected.”

1. Public prosecutor has to apply his mind independently before filing application for withdrawl from prosecution.

Para “14. A combined reading of the above two Constitutional Bench judgments of the Apex Court (cited 5 and 6 supra) would abundantly make it clear that Public Prosecutor is the Executive Authority and even though there are instructions from the appropriate Government to withdraw from prosecuting the case, he has to apply his mind independently notwithstanding any reasons accorded by Government, if any, before filing a petition under Section 321 of the Cr. P.C. In other words, he is not simply bound by the reasons of the Government. Further it is to be noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court while summarizing the legal position in this regard, as extracted above, had considered the earlier judgment of the Apex Court in Rajender Kumar’s case (cited 1 supra).”

1. Notice to the complainant is not mandatory.

Para “23. The other contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled to notice and since no notice was given before issuing the impugned G.O., the same is liable to be set aside. As already noticed, no notice is contemplated under Section 321 of Cr. P.C….”

1. Right of the complainant:- However, In such a situation the complainant can challenge the order of the government.

“23. However, it cannot be understood that he cannot challenge the G.O. and it is always open to him to challenge the G.O., provided he could establish that there are gross violations of the conditions prescribed under Section 321 of Cr. P.C. As already pointed out, in the instant case, there are no such violations. Hence, this contention also merits rejection.” 

2. Neither complainant nor charge witness has locus-standi in the exercise of discretion of P.P. to withdraw from the Prosecution.

In case Razack & others v/s State of Kerala 2001, Cri.L.J. 275

Brief Facts of the case

On 7-8-1992 at about 10.30 a.m., the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and in furtherance of the common object of their unlawful assembly, obstructed public servants from their duty and caused injury to them and mischief to public property. The incident happened due to the long standing family as well as political enmity between the parties. The complainant and charge witnesses were Trade Union Leaders and the accused were local leaders of rival political groups.

During pendency of trial, the Public Prosecutor moved an application with the Court for withdraw of the case on the following grounds:-

(i) that the issue has been amicably settled by the initiative of mediators,

(ii) that to ensure peace and communal harmony in the locality

(iii) that for promoting goodwill between the police, public and between political parties,

(iv) that it will also be in the interest of justice.

The Asst. Sessions Judge issued notice to CWs. 1 to 7, who suffered injuries in the case. After their appearance before the Court, they were examined by the Court. CW- 1 as PW-1 stated that damage to the public property was caused in this case. He further stated and took objection on allowing the petition. The Trial Court dismissed the petition of the PP on the ground that as damage to public property has been caused by the accused and that the injured has also objection to the withdrawl. The accused filed revision petition in the High Court.

Proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court

Plea of the accused

One contention of the accused was that neither the complainant nor the charge witness has locus standi in the exercise of the discretion of the Public Prosecutor.

Question of Law

Whether complainant has locus-standi in the exercise of discretion of PP to withdraw from prosecution?

Findings of the Hon’ble High Court

The Hon’ble High Court held that the complainant has no locus-standi to interfere in the exercise of discretion of PP to withdraw from prosecution.

While holding so, the Hon’ble Kerala High Court observed as under:-

Para “16. It is also pertinent to note that the Asst. Sessions Judge has committed illegality in issuing notice to CWs. 1 to 7 in the case. Under the provisions of Section 321 of the Cr. P. C. when the Public Prosecutor applies for withdrawal from prosecution, the complainant or the charge witnesses has not locus standi in the exercise of the discretion by the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from prosecution.

Para-17. In the decision of Saramma Peter v. State of Kerala, 1991 (1) KLT 881 : (1991 Cri LJ 3211) a single Judge of this Court has observed as follows (at page 3213 of Cri LJ) :

“12. There can be no doubt that only the Public Prosecutor or the Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case and none else, with the consent of the Court, could apply for withdrawal from prosecution. He is not expected to act according to the instructions of the complainant but is the sole Judge. The complainant does not come into the picture and indeed has no locus standi in the matter of exercise of discretion by the Assistant Public Prosecutor.

Para 18. In the decision in Joy Joseph v. Gopinathan, 1999 (1) KLT SN Case No. 37 at page 35 a single Judge of this Court has held that for moving the application for withdrawal under Section 321 of Cr. P.C., the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor is the sole Judge and a third party cannot interfere, particularly, the de facto complainant in the matter and if aggrieved, the de facto complainant can resort to appropriate remedies available to him under law.”

 

Cases Referred

1. Hukum Singh v/s State of Rajasthan 2001, Cri.L.J.511
2. Rammi @ Rameshwar v/s State of Madhya Pradesh, 1999 (4) RCR Criminal

246.

3. Masalti v/s State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 202
4. B.Janakiramaiah Chetty v/s A.K. Parthasarathi, 2002 Cri.L.J.4062, (a case u/s 325, 321 & 120-B IPC

5. Manmohan Lal Sachdev v/s State, 2000 (2) RCR Criminal 523
6. Kuldeep Singh v/s State of Punjab, 1996 Cri.L.J. 1619
7. K.V.V. Krishna Rao v/s State of A.P. 2003 Cri.L.J.2894