George v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
This judgment held that when a Public Prosecutor is in charge of a criminal case, a private lawyer engaged by the complainant acts only under the Prosecution's direction. The court distinguished Harish Kumar and set aside the lower court order allowing the private counsel to examine witnesses.
What did the court decide?
The order of the learned Magistrate allowing the private counsel to examine witnesses is set aside.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 4097 of 2013 ()
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1:
ELDHO GEORGE AGED 41
S/O.GEORGE, CHALAKKATTUKUDY HOUSE, VADVUCODE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.BENNY VARGHESE
SRI.ANIL K.MOHAMMED
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:- COMPLAINANT & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
- STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 682 031.
- JOHN GEORGE
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a private counsel engaged by the de facto complainant can examine and cross-examine witnesses when the Public Prosecutor is in charge of the prosecution.
Whether the engagement of a private lawyer displaces the pre-eminent position of the Public Prosecutor under Section 301 of the CrPC.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Elldho George
- respondent
State
Coram
Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court