IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 287 of 2008 Bal Krishna Bachheti and others ….…… Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ………. Respondents Present: Mr. K.K. Tiwari and Mr. M.S. Bisht, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, Additional Advocate General with Mr.Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent No.1. Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ram Ji Srivastava, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 to 5. WITH Writ Petition (S/B) No. 275 of 2008 Sanjay Kumar ….…… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ………. Respondents Present: Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, Additional Advocate General with Mr.Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent Nos.1 to 3. Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, Judge Date : 23rd December, 2011 JUDGMENT Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral) With effect from 1991, sub-sections (1), (2), (4), (5) and (6) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have been removed by the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with such removal, as it stood as on 9th November, 2000, became the applicable Code in so far as the State of Uttarakhand is concerned. The State of Uttarakhand has adopted the said Code. In view of the law thus stands, for every district, the State Government is required to appoint a Public Prosecutor and one or more Additional Public Prosecutors for the districts and while appointing such Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor to ensure that the person, so to be appointed, has been in 2 practice as an advocate for not less than seven years. By reason of removal of sub-section (4) from Section 24 of the Code, the District Magistrate is not required to consult with the District & Sessions Judge or to prepare a panel of names of persons to be appointed as Public Prosecutors or Additional Public Prosecutors for the district. That being the situation, there is no requirement of law for the State Government to take the views of the District Magistrate or the views of the District & Sessions Judge in the matter of appointment of Public Prosecutors or Additional Public Prosecutors for the districts. 2. Before sub-sections (1), (2), (4), (5) and (6) were deleted from Section 24 of the Code, a Manual, containing executive instructions, was prepared to guide how the powers granted by those sub-sections shall be exercised. The said Manual having not been prepared in exercise of any statutory power, the same had and has no legal force. In paragraph 21 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and another versus Johri Mal, reported in (2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 714, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has expressly held that the said Manual is a mere compilation of executive orders and is not a law within the meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution of India. In those circumstances, the provisions contained in the said Manual providing for consultation by the District Magistrate with the District & Sessions Judge and for preparation of panel, in order to enable appointments of Public Prosecutors or Additional Public Prosecutors for a district, must be deemed to be non est. In other words, the State Government is entitled to appoint a Public Prosecutor or an Additional Public Prosecutor for the district and for that matter is not statutorily bound to consult any one. In view of the state of law, thus prevalent, contention of the writ petitioners in these writ petitions to the effect that they were recommended for being appointed as Additional Public Prosecutors by the District & Sessions Judge but still then 3 they have not been appointed/or have been replaced by someone, who had not been recommended for being so appointed by the District & Sessions Judge, is of no consequence. 3. We, accordingly, find no force in these writ petitions. The same are dismissed. (U.C. Dhyani, J.) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 23.12.2011 23.12.2011 P. Singh