It is duty and responsibility cast on the welfare state to see that Prosecution is conducted in free and fair manner. As a result of initiatives taken by the Supreme Court of India and Government of India, attention is at last being paid to the system of administration of criminal justice which has to a large extent got subordinated to the development imperatives inherent in a democratic set-up. It is now being realized that proper administration of Criminal Justice is a key ingredient in ensuring that the fruits of democracy reaches to all citizens. As a result, there has been a paradigm shift in planning and budgeting priorities, expenditures on the system of Administration of Justice are no longer seen as being at the cost of development, instead it is being seen as a worthwhile investment to ensure optimum utilization of funds earmarked for development.
It is, however, also a fact that this paradigm shift has so far focused mainly on the Courts and the Policing system, rather ignoring the role of the Prosecutor as an intermediary. The Prosecutor, on the one hand is tasked with presenting fairly and comprehensively the results of the police and investigative effort, and on the other hand, as an officer of the Court, is responsible to help prevent miscarriage of justice. Despite its crucial role in the system, so far the prosecution system is yet to get adequate attention in modernizing itself. Partly it is a result of lack of awareness, but mainly it is because the element of “soft skill” or knowledge based inputs are very high and planning and budgeting in such matters is difficult unless there are adequate guidelines and monitoring mechanisms to ensure that financial investments are yielding the desired returns.
The Prosecutor who represents the State is called a Public Prosecutor as a criminal offence is regarded as a public wrong, which has been committed not only against the victim, but also against the society as a whole. Criminal Cases are always termed as “State vs the accused” as they are considered as offences against the people of the state. Public Prosecutors are really Ministers of Justice whose job is none other than assisting the State in the administration of Justice. They are not representatives of any party. Their job is to assist the Court by placing before the Court all relevant aspects of the case. They are not there to use their office against the innocent to go to the gallows. They are also not there to see the culprits escape conviction. The role of the Public Prosecutor begins once the police has conducted the investigation and files the charge sheet in the Court. He represents the interests of the State and conducts the prosecution on behalf of the State. The Public Prosecutor is not involved in the investigation that is conducted by the police. The Public Prosecutor should act impartially and present the full facts, witnesses and evidence before the court to enable the court to decide the case.
The Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2005 has brought about several changes, including a statutory Directorate of Prosecution and the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill, 2006 promises more major reforms, based mainly on the Malimath Committee on reforms of the Criminal justice system.


Section 25A of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the establishment of Directorate of Prosecution which is read as follows:
“25A. Directorate of Prosecution- (1) The State Government may establish a Directorate of Prosecution consisting of 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-sections (8), of section 24 to conduct cases in District Courts and every Assistant 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 Public Prosecutor.”
Directorate of Public Prosecution, Odisha came into existence in 1982. At present, the Directorate has a total strength of 967 Cadre and Non-Cadre Prosecutors comprising of one post of Director of Prosecution, two posts of Deputy Director of Prosecution, 30 numbers of Public Prosecutors, 54 numbers of Special Public Prosecutors, 150 numbers of Additional Public Prosecutors, 57 numbers of Associate Lawyers and 673 numbers of Assistant Public Prosecutors. The objective behind establishing the Directorate of Prosecutions was to exercise close supervision and scrutiny of work relating to various prosecuting agencies at Sessions, Assistant Sessions levels and in the Court of Judicial Magistrates. The Directorate of Prosecutions in the State of Odisha was created to guide all the Prosecuting Officers of the State.
In criminal trial, the Public Prosecutors conduct the Prosecution of the accused on behalf of the State. Prosecutors institute and carry proceedings in a Court of law, especially in Criminal Court. Research oriented and sincere Prosecutors definitely contribute in the well organized criminal justice system in India. One of the aims of Criminal Justice Reforms 2003 was to face the challenge before existing Criminal Justice System in India so as to improve the level of professional competence of the Prosecutors and to ensure that they function in coordination with the investigating agency. The Prosecutors are one of the major components in the Criminal Justice System.


The role of the Prosecutor is not to single-mindedly seek a conviction regardless of the evidence but his/her fundamental duty is to ensure that justice is delivered. The Indian judiciary interpreted role, responsibilities and duties of prosecution as follows:-
1) The ideal Public Prosecutor is not concerned with securing convictions, or with satisfying departments of the State Governments with which she/he has been in contact. He must consider herself/himself as an agent of justice. It is well settled in Law that the duty of the Public Prosecutor is to see that justice is vindicated and that he should not obtain an unrighteous conviction.
2) There should not be on part of a Public Prosecutor a seemly eagerness for, or grasping at a conviction. The purpose of a criminal trial being to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused person, the duty of a Public Prosecutor is not to represent any particular party, but the State. The prosecution of the accused persons has to be conducted with the utmost fairness. In undertaking the prosecution, the State is not actuated by any motive of revenge but seeks only to protect the community. There should not therefore be “a seemly eagerness for, or grasping at a conviction.”

3) A Public Prosecutor should not by statement aggravate the case against the accused, or keep back a witness because her/his evidence may weaken the case for prosecution. The only aim of a Public Prosecutor should be to aid the court in discovering truth. A Public Prosecutor should avoid any proceedings likely to intimidate or unduly influence witnesses on either side.
4) A Public Prosecutor should place before the Court whatever evidence is in her/his possession .The duty of a public Prosecutor is not merely to secure the conviction of the accused at all costs but to place before the court whatever evidence is in the possession of the prosecution, whether it be in favour of or against the accused and to leave the court to decide upon all such evidence, whether the accused had or had not committed the offence with which he stood charged. It is as much the duty of the Prosecutor as of the court to ensure that full and material facts are brought on record so that there might not be miscarriage of justice.
5) The duty of the Public Prosecutor is to represent the State and not the police. A Public Prosecutor is an important officer of the State Government and is appointed by the State under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. She/ he is not a part of the investigating agency. She/ he is an independent statutory authority. She/ he is neither the post office of the investigating agency, nor it’s forwarding agency; but is charged with a statutory duty.
6) The purpose of a criminal trial is not to support at all cost a theory, but to investigate the offence and to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused and the duty of the Public Prosecutor is to represent the State and her/his duty should be discharged by her/him fairly and fearlessly and with a full sense of that attaches to her/his position. There can be no manner of doubt that Parliament intended that Public Prosecutors should be free from the control of the police department.

7) The prosecution should not mean persecution and the Prosecutor should be scrupulously fair to the accused and should not strive for conviction in all these cases. The prosecution of an offender should not be given to a private party. There should be no room for legalized manner of causing vengeance.
8) A Public Prosecutor cannot appear on behalf of the accused. It is inconsistent with the ethics of legal profession and fair play in the administration of justice for the Public Prosecutor to appear on behalf of the accused.
9) No fair trial when the Prosecutor acts in a manner as if he was defending the accused, It is the Public Prosecutor’s duty to present the truth before the court. Fair trial means a trial before an impartial Judge, a fair Prosecutor and atmosphere of judicial non-chalance. The Prosecutor who does not act fairly and acts more like a counsel for the defense is a liability to the fair judicial system.
10) The statutory responsibility for deciding upon withdrawal squarely vests unwaveringly with the Public Prosecutor and should be guided by the Criminal Procedure Code. The Criminal Procedure Code is the only master of the Public Prosecutor and he has to guide herself/himself with reference to Criminal Procedure Code only. So guided, the consideration which must weigh with her/him is, whether the broader cause of public justice will be advanced or retarded by the withdrawal or continuance of the prosecution. The sole consideration for the Public Prosecutor when she/he decides a withdrawal from a prosecution is the larger factor of administration of justice.
11) The Prosecutor may apply for withdrawal of those State cases in which instructions are so received from the Government. The Prosecutor may also withdraw that case which is inherently weak in evidence and there is no prospect of its success and further Prosecution of which is a sheer wastage of Court’s time. (Sec. 321 Cr.P.C) If the case is withdrawn in compliance of the Government orders, the Prosecutor shall inform the Government accordingly after withdrawing the case.


1. Public Prosecutors conduct Sessions Cases on-behalf of the State Government in the Court of District and Sessions Judges.
2. Additional Public Prosecutors conduct Sessions cases on-behalf of the State Government in the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge.
3. Special Public Prosecutors conduct cases under Special Act before the designated Courts under Special Acts such as NDPS Act, SC/ST POA Act, POCSO Act. Electricity Act, OPID Act, etc on-behalf of the State Government.
4. Associate Lawyers conduct cases on-behalf of the State Government before the court of Sessions/ Asst. Sessions/ Magisterial Courts. He acts under the direction of Government Pleader or the Public Prosecutor.
5. Assistant Public Prosecutors represent the State before the Court of Judicial Magistrates. He gives his opinion in each decided case ending in acquittal, conviction, discharge etc and submits the Judgment alongwith Legal opinion to the Public Prosecutor concerned for taking further action. He also appears in Revenue Courts/Executive Courts on behalf of the State.


The Prosecutor should produce and examine the witnesses who are produced before him. He/She shall lay all relevant and admissible evidence with the provisions of Indian Evidence Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Prosecutor should also try to prove all relevant facts necessary for the proving of the case of Prosecution in accordance with the procedure as contained in the Indian Evidence Act.
Before producing the witnesses the Prosecutor should master the facts of the case and should decide which witness would be required to prove the ingredients of the charges framed against the accused persons/ persons. When witnesses are produced before him by the Police Station or Department concerned or when a witness on receipt of summons, appears before him, the Prosecutor should first test their testimony regarding the facts of the case. If the memory of the witnesses has faded due to lapse of time, the Prosecutor should help them in memorising the facts as contained in the documents sent by the Police with Charge sheet under Sec.173 Cr.P.C.


All the Prosecutors during the course of Trial should not forget to exhibit the documentary evidence relating to the case of Prosecution and shall ensure production of material objects/ seized articles during the Trial.


When any accused is brought and produced or appears before the Magistrate for purposes of remand under Sec.167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the Prosecutor shall assist the court in remanding him to such custody as the Court thinks fit. If the Court refuses to remand the accused to any custody (judicial or Police) due to any fault in investigation or any fault on the part of Investigating Officer, the Prosecutor should bring this fact to the notice of Superintendent of Police or the District Magistrate of the District.


When the accused who is in judicial custody moves for bail in non-bailable offences and the Court has issued notice to the Prosecutor on his bail application, the Prosecutor shall oppose this bail application to the best of his ability depending on facts and circumstances of the case within the purview of law.


The Prosecutor may move for cancellation of bail under Sec.437(5) or 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 granted to the accused by the Court conditionally, when it is brought to his notice and there is sufficient evidence in that behalf that the accused has committed breach of any of the conditions imposed by the court while granting him bail. The Prosecutor may also apply for cancellation of bail of any accused in case instances of misuse with sufficient evidence are brought to his notice.


(1) The movable property seized by the police/seizing authority (Sec.457 Cr.P.C.) and which is the subject matter of offence, shall be kept in Malkhana and necessary entries in respect thereof will be made in the registers.
(2) The valuable movable properties seized by the police/seizing authority under Sec.457CrPC like gold, ornaments and cash exceeding rupees one thousand shall be kept in Treasury in safe custody with double lock and key and the Prosecutor shall take necessary steps or ensure production of those seized articles before the court during the trial.
(3) When application for release of the property in respect of which an offence is committed and the same is seized by the police and its seizure is reported by the police or seizing authority to the Court under Sec.457 Code of Criminal Procedure, the Prosecutor will oppose the release of the said property, if in his opinion the release of such property will adversely affect successful prosecution.
(4) When the property is released in favour of the person entitled to its possession, the Prosecutor may ask the Court to pass necessary orders for making good the expenses incurred by the police/seizing authority in maintaining and up-keeping of such properties during the period it remained in police/seizing authority’s custody.
(5) When the case is finally disposed of then after expiry of period of appeal, if any, the case properties kept in the Malkhana will be disposed of as per direction given in the judgment of the concerned case. In case no such direction is given in judgment the Prosecutor should obtain necessary directions in this behalf from the Court concerned. The case properties seized under the Arms Act and are kept in the Malkhana will be disposed of as per directions contained in the circular letters made in this behalf time to time by the Hon’ble Court.
(6) The Prosecutor will also ensure that information regarding decision of the cases is sent to the Police Station/Department concerned so that the case properties kept in the Malkhana of the Police Stations are to be disposed of in accordance with the directions given hereinbefore or prescribed in this behalf.


1. The Prosecutors in-charge of a case shall appear and plead without any written authority before any Court in which he is assigned to work as provided under section 301 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. If in any such case a private person instructs a Pleader to Prosecute any person in any Court, such Pleader shall act under the directions of the Public Prosecutor or Additional/Assistant Public Prosecutor and may with permission of the Court, submit written arguments after the evidence is closed in the case.
3. Public Prosecutor should not examine unnecessary witnesses or the witnesses who are of repetitive nature particularly in Sessions trial, but at the same time each important and necessary fact should be properly proved.
4. Prosecutors should give detailed reasons for declining a witness so that there shall be no dispute at a later stage.
5. Prosecutors should also get calendar of evidence prepared from the Investigating Officer containing names and addresses of each witness along with brief statement of what is expected to be proved from each witness at the time of scrutiny of challan before the case is sent for trial.
6. It has come to notice that the weapon of offence which is taken into possession by the Police during investigation is sometimes not shown to the Medical Officer or his opinion is not obtained. The concerned Public Prosecutor should insist that the weapon of offence should be shown to the Medical Officer and in case it is not done at the stage of investigation on account of any reason the Public Prosecutor should show the weapon of offence to the Medical Officer during trial.
7. The Prosecutor as far as possible may bring on record the entire relevant evidence recorded in the statement of witnesses under section 161, 164 Cr.P.C. in the best interest of the case.
8. All the material witnesses should be examined during the trial by the Prosecutor, and the ingredients of the offence and chain of evidence should be properly established.
9. Proper examination of medical experts and other expert witnesses are to be ensured. Expert reports should be proved in accordance with the law during trial.
10. In case a prosecution witness gives answers adverse to the prosecution case, it shall be the duty of the Prosecutor to treat the witness as hostile with the permission of the court and cross-examine him as provided under section 154 of the Evidence Act.
11. The Prosecutor shall take effective steps for the identification of the articles/case property and the accused.
12. The Prosecutor should also inform the court of the order in which he wants to examine witnesses. This order of calling witnesses should be based on the nature/facts of the case and the impact of the testimony of the various witnesses.
13. The Prosecutor should get the weapon of offence exhibited from the witnesses whenever it is a part of the case and should draw the attention of the eye-witnesses and/or expert witnesses to the weapon in order to link it to the commission of the crime or to its possession or ownership etc. of the accused or other person and may also request the court for re-examination whenever necessary in the interest of prosecution.
14. The Prosecutor should ensure proper presentation of the forensic evidence collected by the police during the course of investigation.
15. The Prosecutor should make full use of the presence of the complainant (who is generally present during the trial) to give relevant information for the cross examination of the witnesses who turns hostile or of the defence witnesses.
16. The Prosecutor should move an application under section 311 Cr.P.C. whenever required for the additional evidence which is essential for a just decision of the case.
17. The Prosecutor shall also seek opinion from Medical Officer regarding whether the injuries are likely to have been caused by the weapon being exhibited. In offences under section 302 of IPC, whether the injury is likely to have been the cause of death shall invariably be got elucidated from the Medical Officer.
18. The Prosecutor while examining the Doctor conducting medical examination or the post mortem examination, shall question him whether the bodily injury inflicted or intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, which is an essential ingredient to bring the act of the accused under clause thirdly of Section 300 Indian Penal Code. Since, on account of this material omission, the accused-appellant succeeds in pleading that the provisions of Section 304 Part I or Part II of Indian Penal Code are attracted and the case is not covered by Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.
19. The Prosecutor shall carefully examine and keep in view the distinction between the provisions of sections 299 and 300 of Indian Penal Code while conducting a trial in a murder case so that the accused is not able to dilute the charge of murder.
20. In case the expert witnesses/ material witnesses are not served, with Court Summons, the Prosecutor should intimate the fact in writing to the Court for effecting the service on the witnesses through special messenger.
21. Arguments: Before the arguments, the Prosecutor will procure copies of entire evidence adduced in the case and copies of exhibits, if not already available with him. He will prepare the case on facts as well as on law keeping in view the probable defences. The list of decisions to be cited by him also be prepared and kept by him.
22. While at the time of conducting prosecution the Prosecutor comes across any latches, lapses and negligence of any kind on the part of the police or other Department in regard to Investigation, enquiry of the case, he will report it to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned District.


Under section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the order of sanction should be a speaking one and well reasoned. It should be apparent from the sanction order that the appropriate authority had carefully applied its mind before passing the order. The order should be elaborate enough to describe the involvement and role of the public servant in the commission of the specific offence for which sanction is being granted. It should clearly include the provisions of law which have been violated by the offender and in what manner.
Many a time senior officers are being summoned to give evidence in respect of cases where they have accorded sanction for Prosecution. Such cases must be examined carefully by the Prosecutor and request to Court concerned to summon senior officers need not be made if their testimony can be dispensed with. If the appropriate authority passes a speaking order, normally there is no need of examining the authority as witness. It will suffice to examine an official of the office who is well conversant with the proceeding of sanction and the signature of the sanctioning authority. This has been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court (AIR 1979 SC 677). The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held:
“That an order of valid sanction can be proved by the Sanctioning Authority in two ways: either (1) by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction; or (2) by adducing evidence aliunde to show that the facts were placed before the Sanctioning Authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it.”


Sometimes witnesses who are government servants, resile from their previous statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and give hostile deposition in the Courts, which is contrary to the prosecution case. Sometimes government servants contrary to the office record, intentionally give false evidence in the court of law. Then there are cases where FIR is registered at the instance of a Government servant, or where he creates mischief by, firstly, deposing in favour of the prosecution in examination-in-chief and then shatters the same in cross-examination. If during the trial a Government servant cited as prosecution witness is found to have committed an irregularity or lapse in deposing contrary to the office record or the factual position and the same is such that it may be considered necessary to convey to the officer concerned the sense of displeasure over it, the Prosecutor in-charge of the case shall communicate the matter enclosing photocopy of the statement of such Government servant appearing as prosecution witness alongwith his comments to this Directorate. There may also be cases where a non-official witness while appearing as prosecution witness intentionally gives false evidence in the court of law under the similar circumstances. In such circumstances the Prosecutor concerned should pray to the Courts, for initiating proceedings to prosecute for perjury in accordance with the law against such witnesses.


(1) The period of filing appeal against the judgment of acquittal in State cases as given inSec.378 of the Code of Procedure, is sixty days. When the Prosecutor forms an opinion that the acquittal is unjustified and he recommends for filing of State appeal, he should apply for obtaining certified copies of judgment on the next day of pronounment of judgment. He should keep in mind that only that much period is excluded in computing the period of filing of appeal which is consumed in obtaining certified copies of judgment.
(2) After obtaining the certified copies of the judgment, the Prosecutor should prepare proposal (narrative) for appeal containing brief facts of the case, the charges framed against the accused, the witnesses examined by the Prosecutor, the defence version and the witnesses examined by the defence, if any, the grounds of acquittal and the reasons how the acquittal is unjustified. This proposal along with the certified copies of the judgments shall be sent to the office of the Superintendent of Police alongwith copies of depositions and accused statements in the prescribed form within three days from the date of receipt of copies of impugned judgment.
(See Letter No. 6345 (26) dated 19.04.1983 Government of Orissa Law Department.)
Where on examination of the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court, an appeal is not found feasible by the Assistant Public Prosecutor/Public Prosecutor on account of defective investigation or hostile deposition by the Government Officer/Official who appeared as a Prosecution witness or some failure on part of the Prosecution or any other reason, the Prosecutor shall prepare a detailed report proposing action against the erring officers/officials and submit the same to the Directorate of Public Prosecutions.

While examining the judgment of acquittal, the Prosecutor shall form his independent opinion with supporting material and highlight the nature of contradictions/infirmities and its impact on the outcome of the prosecution. Provisions of section 167 of the Indian Evidence Act shall also be taken into consideration while processing such reports.
In case there is any adverse comments (stricture) in the Judgment against any police officer, the Prosecuting officer of concerned Court shall forward this report alongwith his comments to the Superintendent of Police of the said District.
In case the adverse comments (stricture) in the Judgment relates to any other Government servants, the Prosecuting Officer concerned may forward this report with his comments alongwith a copy of the Judgment to the Head of the Department of the employee against whom adverse comments are passed.


Where the sentence passed by the Court against any convict is inadequate or is disproportionate to the facts and circumstances of the case and the punishment attached to the offence and the Prosecutor forms an opinion that appeal should be filed for enhancement of sentence, he should follow the same procedure prescribed for filing of appeal given herein before.


(1) The Prosecutor may apply for withdrawal of those State cases in which instructions are so received from the Government But apart from the instructions, he will also apply his mind to the facts of the case and decide whether it is necessary to withdraw the case in the interest of justice. If he opines that it is not in the interest of justice to withdraw the case, he will inform the Government accordingly.
(2) The Prosecutor may also withdraw with prior approval of the Government that case which is inherently weak in evidence and there is no prospect of its success and further prosecution of which is a sheer wastage of Courts’ time. (Sec.321 Cr. P.C.)
(3) If the case is withdrawn in compliance of the Government orders, the Prosecutor shall inform the Government accordingly after withdrawal of the case.


The Prosecutor shall concede for compound the cases only as provided under section 320 Cr.P.C with or without permission of the Court. Extra care shall be taken during compounding of the cases permissible under Law regarding identification of the complainant and the accused so that impersonation of the parties is avoided.
Since the Prosecutor is appearing on-behalf of the Sate Govt., it is the duty and responsibility of Public Prosecutor to identify the bonafide persons coming to the Court to compromise their case under Sec.320 Cr. P.C and also ensure for lawful acceptance of final report by the Court during the Lok Adalat.


Before compensation prosecutor must see the compliance of para 7(c) and give his opinion to the DLSA under para 9(h) of “The Orissa Victim Compensation Scheme, 2017”, the relevant provisions of which are noted hereunder.
Para 7 :- Eligibility for compensation:-
(c) The victim shall co-operate with the police and prosecution from the stage of investigation till conclusion of trial of the case.

Para 9:- Procedure for grant of compensation:-
h) The compensation awarded shall be paid in two phases, first half being within any time before commencement of trial and the rest half on conclusion of trial subject to the satisfaction to be recorded in writing by the District Legal Services Authority basing upon the opinion of the Public Prosecutor concerned that the victim cooperates with the Prosecution during trial.


As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is State of Gujurat- Verses -Kishanbhai etc (Criminal Appeal No.1485 of 2008), direction was given to the Home Department of every State Government to formulate a procedure for taking action against all erring investigating/ Prosecuting Officials. In view of the above judgment vide Notification No.12222, dated 20.03.2014 District Level Standing Committee was constituted in each District comprising of the Superintendent of Police, Public Prosecutor, Addl. S.P./ D.S.P (Crime) to review the acquittal Judgments to identify the erring Investigating or Prosecuting Officials responsible for failure of Prosecution on account of sheer negligence or because of culpable lapses.


The Public Prosecutor shall keep close liaison with the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police of the District and apprise them about developments in every sensitive and important case pending in the various Courts including matters affecting the effectiveness of the system of criminal justice.

Monthly co-ordination meeting with District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police shall invariably be attended by the Public Prosecutor, where the issues relating to better coordination between Prosecution and Investigating agencies as well as issues arising out of latest judgments will be discussed. The Public Prosecutor shall also apprise participants about the legal issues arising out of the functioning of all the Law Officers in the District.

Every Prosecutor shall furnish legal opinion or assistance in regard to criminal or departmental proceeding matters to the Police or other Departments, whenever so requested by them.

Prosecutor and Police should keep in mind that their object is to help in administration of criminal justice and they should endeavour to achieve this object with full sense of mutual co-operation and trust.

Every Prosecutor is expected to conduct his work with punctuality, honesty, sincerity and dedications.

The Prosecutors in general are impressed to be in touch with the recent pronouncement of Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ ble High Courts specially touching realistic appreciation of the evidence on record so that they can conduct the Chief examination of the Prosecution witnesses in the light of the above discussed “stare decis” by avoiding any possible defect in the case which may in long run vitiates the trial and the case results in unmerited acquittals.