Chapter II
Section 25 CrPC: Assistant Public Prosecutors
New Law Update (2024)
Section 26 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Courts of Magistrates
Punishment
Procedural – Investigation / Inquiry
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) The State Government shall appoint in every district one or more Assistant Public Prosecutors for conducting prosecutions in the Courts of Magistrates.
(1A) The Central Government may appoint one or more Assistant Public Prosecutors for the purpose of conducting any case or class of cases in the Courts of Magistrates.
(2) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (3), no police officer shall be eligible to be appointed as an Assistant Public Prosecutor.
(3) Where no Assistant Public Prosecutor is available for the purposes of any particular case, the District Magistrate may appoint any other person to be the Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of that case:
Provided that a police officer shall not be so appointed—
(a) if he has taken any part in the investigation into the offence with respect to which the accused is being prosecuted; or
(b) if he is below the rank of Inspector.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 25(1) & (1A)
These sub-sections outline the primary authority for appointing Assistant Public Prosecutors (APPs): the State Government for general district-level prosecutions and the Central Government for specific cases or classes of cases in Magistrate Courts.
Section 25(3)
This crucial sub-section permits the District Magistrate to appoint any suitable person, including a police officer, as an APP for a particular case if no regular APP is available. However, it strictly prohibits the appointment of a police officer who was involved in the investigation of that specific case or who is below the rank of Inspector, safeguarding prosecutorial independence.
Landmark Judgements
S. B. Shahane & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 1995 (1) Mh.L.J. 614:
The Bombay High Court emphasized that the appointment of police officers as Assistant Public Prosecutors under Section 25(3) is an exceptional measure, strictly conditional on the police officer’s non-involvement in the investigation of the specific case, reinforcing the need for prosecutorial independence.
V.S. Kuttan Pillai v. Ramakrishnan, 1980 KLT 109:
The Kerala High Court held that the proviso to Section 25(3) is mandatory, prohibiting the appointment of a police officer as an Assistant Public Prosecutor if they were involved in the investigation or are below the rank of Inspector. This ruling underscored the importance of adhering to the statutory conditions for fair trial and impartiality.