“44. Insofar as sub-sections (4) and (5) of S.24 of the CrPC are concerned, they clearly refer to the term 'panel' and preparation of the same by the District Collector, in consultation with the District and Sessions Judge. What flows from the provision is as to the necessity to have 'mandatory / effective consultation' with the District and Sessions Judge as to the suitability of the person concerned. This alone has been explained and asserted by the Apex Court in Chauhan's case and there cannot be any dispute with regard to the same. As observed by the Apex Court, the expression "panel of names of persons" used in S.24(4) and (5) do not mean that some names are to be suggested by the Sessions Judge and some comments are to be made in respect of those names by the District Magistrate, without proper consultation and discussion over such names. What has been asserted by the Supreme Court is that, consultation with the District and Sessions Judge is not an empty formality and that the statutory mandate requires 'effective and real consultation' by the District Magistrate and the District and Sessions Judge; and if only this lapse is established, will there occur any infraction of the provisions of S.24 of the CrPC. It is in the said circumstance, that the Apex Court has made it clear in Chauhan's case that, if the District and Sessions Judge has affirmed the suitability of a person with regard to qualification, experience, integrity, reliability and reputation, it is only the suitability of such person for being appointed as Public Prosecutors 'on administrative grounds', that can be decided by the District Magistrate.”
