The Prosecutor's Dilemma: Power, Politics, and Reform in the Indian Justice System
- Legal Journey
- Oct 18
- 20 min read
Updated: Oct 26
Abstract
This paper examines the evolving role and responsibilities of public prosecution in the Indian criminal justice system. This is being done in light of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The paper adopts a doctrinal-comparative research methodology and analyses the statutory provisions, landmark judgments and compares this with other common law countries like the United States. The paper analyses the role and function of the prosecution at every stage of a criminal prosecution. It also critically examines the limitations and the checks and balances imposed upon the prosecution. The paper concludes by offering various reforms which, if implemented, will significantly enhance the efficiency and credibility of the prosecution system while also ensuring the rights of both the accused and the victim are protected, which consequently will also strengthen the perception of the prosecution system in the eyes of the public.
Keywords: prosecution, criminal justice, discretion, and reforms
Introduction: The 'Minister of Justice'
The Indian criminal justice system follows the adversarial system. This system also lays the foundation for the principle of presuming an accused to be innocent until proven guilty. The burden of rebutting this presumption of innocence lays heavily on the prosecution, to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Prosecution serves as the primary agent who is responsible for presenting the case of the State against the accused individuals while ensuring the effective administration of justice. The Prosecutor is embedded with a variety of powers including the power to decide whether to initiate or discontinue prosecutions, what charges to frame, leading the conducting of trial, etc.
However, a number of questions are raised about the independence[1], discretion, and accountability of the prosecution due to the complex role of the prosecution. This paper seeks to examine the role of the prosecution within the criminal justice system, exploring the duties, powers, challenges, and the potential reforms that could further strengthen its function in providing prompt and equitable justice.
The Prosecution, commonly known as the public prosecutor, is an independent statutory authority which is appointed by the State to represent both the state as well as the society in Criminal trials. The Prosecution is often referred to as the “gatekeeper of the criminal justice process”[2] and as a result plays an important role in the administration of justice. Under the Indian criminal law, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) defines a “Public Prosecutor” as a person appointed under Section 18[3]. Section 18, read with sections 19 and 20 contemplates a multi-tiered prosecutorial system while establishing a Directorate of Prosecution in every State as well as in every district.
The Directorate of Prosecution consists of the Director of Prosecution along with as many Deputy Directors of Prosecution as may be necessary. Additionally, the Assistant Director of Prosecution, Public Prosecutor, Additional Public Prosecutor, Assistant Public Prosecutor and Special Public Prosecutor are also within the Directorate and are all subordinate to the Director of Prosecution.
Overall, the public prosecutor within the Indian legal system is an advocate who is appointed by the State to uphold the rule of law, protect the interest of the society, and also ensure the prevalence of justice while maintaining a balance between the rights of the accused as well as of the victim. The CrPC lacked any explicit mention relating to the powers and functions of the Directors of Prosecution but this lacunae has been resolved by the BNSS. The Director of Prosecution is responsible for monitoring cases with over ten years of imprisonment to expedite the proceedings and give opinion on filing of appeals. The Deputy Director of Prosecution is responsible for examining and scrutinizing police reports as well as to monitor the cases where the punishment is over seven years but less than ten years, to ensure expeditious disposal. Lastly, the Assistant Director of Prosecution is responsible for monitoring cases with imprisonment of less than seven years.
Regarding the appointment of the prosecution officers, the Supreme Court has, while relying on Law Commission reports, emphasised that public prosecutors must be independent from the police. Section 19 of BNSS expressly bars investigating officers from appointment as Public Prosecutors which directly ensures that investigation and prosecution are separated.
The Core Mandate: Proving Guilt
Once appointed, a public prosecutor’s primary duty is to conduct the prosecution on behalf of the State. Within the Indian criminal justice system, the prosecution occupies an extremely important role. As we follow the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” wherein the accused is presumed to be innocent of all charges until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is put on the public prosecutor and it's a very heavy burden. Failure on the part of the prosecution to fulfill the burden itself is a ground for the acquittal of the accused. This role places the prosecutor at the forefront of the criminal trial process wherein they examine witnesses, present evidence, and make legal arguments to establish the commission of an offense.
The fundamental duty of the prosecutor is not to ensure convictions in all cases, rather it is to ensure a fair and impartial trial.[4] Unlike a defence advocate who represents a private party, the prosecution acts as a “Minister of Justice,” and as a result is obligated towards the State, the accused, the Court and is also considered to be an officer of the Court.[5] The prosecution is also responsible for ensuring that crimes are effectively investigated and prosecuted while upholding the principles of fairness and justice.
Prosecutorial duties and powers across various stages of criminal prosecution
A. Investigation to Charge Sheet: The Missing Link
Under the Indian Criminal Justice system, the investigative stage has been officially entrusted upon the investigative agencies, primarily the police. The participation of prosecution finds no explicit mention in the statutory provisions. However, in the case of R. Sarala vs T.S. Velu And Ors[6], the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the investigation agency is never legally obligated to consult the prosecution but they always have the option for legal consultation by the Public Prosecutor or any other legal talent to get the best legal advice on any legal aspect concerning the preparation of any report, but he is never legally obliged to do so. In this case the court also noted that the Public Prosecutor is an officer of the court, his primary duty revolves around administration of justice and is not involved in the investigation.[7] Further it was observed by the Court that,
“It is not in the scheme of the Code for supporting or sponsoring any combined operation between the investigation officer and the Public Prosecutor for filing the report in the court.”[8]
Hence, it is clear that the instrumental powers relating to investigation such as search, seizure, interrogation, or arrest are exclusively under the domain of the police. The prosecution is an independent statutory authority and as a result is expected to act independently whenever applying its mind to any request made by the investigative agency.[9] But, even when the investigative agencies make any request for opinion or advice of the prosecution and the prosecution provides such opinion or advice, the investigative agency is not bound by it.
This dissociative approach between two arms of procedural justice is a major mooting point. It has been noted by numerous police officers that there is severe lack of coordination between the two agencies and as a result legal advice at the investigation stage is completely missing which directly and adversely affects the quality of investigation.[10] Degradation in the quality of investigation in turn leads to a poor prosecution case during trial.
The filing of the final report under Section 193[11] marks the end of an investigation albeit further investigation may be conducted on satisfaction of specific conditions. Even at this stage, the role of the prosecution has not been explicitly stated by the statute. As per Section 193(3)[12] the final report is to be submitted by the police directly to the Magistrate. This procedure, which generally is will lead to a criminal trial, directly skips the prosecutor who will be playing a key role in the said trial.
However, as a matter of practice, the charge-sheet is generally sent to the public prosecutor for legal scrutiny before it can be filed before the Magistrate.[13] Interestingly, even though the prosecutor is given the opportunity to scrutinise the charge-sheet before filing, he does not have the authority to revert the case back to the police for further investigation; however, suggestions in favour of such authority have been made.[14]
During investigation some more functions are fulfilled by the prosecution, like appearing on behalf of the state during the hearing of bail applications[15], or to secure police/judicial custody of the accused, or to obtain search and arrest warrants as and when necessary. The role of the prosecution during the pre-trial stage is limited. Additionally, they do not have any direct power relating to investigation or in the conducting of inquiries to ascertain all of the evidence or facts of the case to make their own case stronger.
This paper, however, argues that legal compulsion for active participation by the prosecution even during the stage of investigation is the need of the hour but not in any manner which might interfere with the process of investigation itself. For example, in relation to collection of evidence, it shall remain to be the sole prerogative of the police, but the way in which it is to be collected which ensures maximum legal credibility may be advised upon by the prosecution. This type of collaboration between the two agencies ensures that neither body encroaches upon each other's powers while also ensuring better quality evidence will be made presentable during trial.
B. Trial Power: Charges, Pleas, and Withdrawal
The filing of the charge-sheet marks the beginning of the criminal trial. Once police investigation ends with a charge-sheet, prosecution and trial proceed under judicial oversight independent of the police. The prosecutor has no power to investigate crime. The main role or functions of a prosecutor begins at this stage where the judge takes charge of the fact-finding process and the prosecutor assists the court in doing so.
Framing of Charges
It begins by the prosecution arguing on the charges to be framed against the accused. After hearing both the parties, if the Court is convinced that there is a prima facie case against the accused, charges are framed against him. Once charges are framed, the accused is given an opportunity to plead guilty or not guilty. Generally, a plea of guilt directly results in a conviction without a trial. On the other hand, if the accused pleads not guilty, a date is fixed for the trial to commence. The case is opened by the prosecution, it is firstly on the prosecution to rebut the presumption of innocence. If the prosecution fails to meet this burden, it automatically leads to an acquittal, however if the prosecution succeeds in overcoming this burden, only then is the defence supposed to enter its evidence to put reasonable doubts in the mind of the court.
Plea Bargaining and Sentencing
During the trial, if the accused requests for a plea bargain, as may be applicable, it is for the prosecution to again represent the interests of the accused and the state during the bargaining. It is the responsibility of the prosecution to evaluate and decide whether to accept the plea bargain or not. Before a plea bargain can be entered into, the court is bound to inquire into the voluntariness of the plea bargain. The public prosecutor must also ensure that the plea bargain is entered into voluntarily and knowingly by the accused and also that such agreement is in the best interest of the public.
After hearing both the parties, the court decides the guilt of the accused. A guilty verdict occasions another hearing for the purposes of ascertaining the sentence of the accused. In this hearing as well, both the parties are heard and an appropriate sentence is pronounced for the accused. It is the duty of the public prosecutor to aid the court so that the court can arrive at a fair conclusion with respect to not only the guilt of the accused, but also for the purposes of sentencing, probation, or admonition as the case may be. In addition to this, the prosecution is also supposed to assist the court to arrive at a fair and just compensation for the victim as well.
Role of Private Counsel and Withdrawal
During a trial, if the victim wishes to prosecute the accused through a private advocate, even then the case shall be only be conducted by the public prosecutor and the private advocate shall only act according to the directions of the public prosecutor.[16] This reinforces the idea of societal interest before private interests. A private advocate enrolled by the victim for a prosecution will only aim towards a conviction, which is not the principle our judicial system is based upon. To maintain a fair and just criminal trial, it is important to ensure the neutrality of the prosecution which can be only achieved through State appointed advocates.
Finally, at any time before the judgment is pronounced, the prosecution has the power to withdraw the case.[17] This is not an absolute power, withdrawal of a case can only be done with the permission of the court and while granting or refusing the requisite permission, the court is required to apply its judicial discretion.[18] But the right to present an application of withdrawal is embedded only in the prosecution and the statute does not provide for any criteria to be followed while deciding whether to withdraw a case or not. It is the sole discretion of the prosecution[19] and as a result gives rise to arbitrary or biased withdrawal of cases. This power of the prosecution is subject only to the permission of the Court, which cannot decide on such an application of withdrawal without hearing out the victim on the matter.
During a trial, it is the discretion of the prosecution on which witness to examine and which evidence to be produced, even the Court cannot compel examination of particular witnesses on their side.[20] However, the Prosecutor must also disclose to the court any and all evidence which may be favourable to the accused, notwithstanding the State’s desire to convict. Failure to afford fair hearing to either party is violative of even the minimum standards of due process of law.[21]
If the police actively seek the advice and guidance of the public prosecutor, and the prosecution shows interest in providing such advice while also playing an active role during the preparation stages of the trial, it can significantly improve the quality of evidence being presented in the court of law. The insights and expertise of both the agencies when combined can ensure not only effective investigation, but also proper prosecution which could very well result in the promotion of justice.
C. Post-Trial: Appeals and Victim Rights
The role of the prosecution does not end with the conclusion of the trial. The appellate stage of criminal proceedings is equally significant. The prosecution, as the representative of the State, has the right to file an appeal against an acquittal, against the inadequacy of a sentence, etc. Under BNSS, the State may appeal to the Sessions Court, High Court, or the Supreme Court depending on various factors such as the gravity or the nature of the case.
Whether to appeal or not against the accused is within the sole discretion of the prosecution, however, if the prosecutor fails to appeal, the victim[22] has a right to prefer an appeal under 422 of BNSS which also includes the right to prosecute an appeal.[23] This ensures that the discretion of the prosecutor does not negatively affect the victim while also giving the victim a direct opportunity to seek further legal remedy if they so choose. Additionally, under BNSS, the Director of Prosecution is also supposed to give opinion on filing of appeals which is yet another safeguard which favours the victim.
The prosecution, at the stage of appeal, must balance two competing interests that are the rights of the accused against prolonged litigation and ensuring that miscarriage of justice is corrected when acquittals or lenient sentences are the result of erroneous judgments.
Additionally, the prosecution also plays an important role in opposing frivolous appeals filed by the defence that may unnecessarily delay justice. At this stage, the prosecutor again acts as a minister of justice ensuring fairness, preventing misuse of the appellate process, and ensuring victims are adequately represented in higher courts.
Global View: India vs. US Prosecution systems
The prosecutorial systems of the United States (US) and India both follow the common-law system yet exhibit various structural, procedural, and functional differences. These differences may be attributed to the divergent legal traditions and constitutional principles being followed in both the countries.
In India, prosecutors are appointed based on merits but in the US, most of the prosecutors are elected officials. This electoral model in the US infuses political accountability into the prosecution system. While this can and might even make them responsible towards their voters, it can also tempt them to focus more on ensuring high conviction rates. In contrast, Indian prosecutors are expected to be independent of all political affiliations.
The US prosecutors enjoy very wide discretion as compared to their Indian counterparts throughout the criminal process. The discretion is most significant in the area of framing of charges. US prosecutors can freely decide whether to file charges at all, and if they wish to do so, what specific charges to pursue. For instance, the same set of facts, such as possession of an unlawful weapon may allow for different levels of charges, ranging from mere unlawful possession or possession with an intent to sell. The choice of the prosecutor determines the punishment as well as the bargaining position of the accused. The Courts rarely interfere in such decisions. The U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Armstrong[24] held that charging decisions are primarily executive functions, and judicial review is limited to cases of clear constitutional violations like racial discrimination or bad faith.
Plea bargaining completely dominates the criminal justice system in America with over 90% of criminal cases being resolved by way of negotiated pleas, as opposed to complete trial. It is another important area of discretion of the US prosecutors. As a result, the prosecutors in the US possess a lot of leverage by threatening higher charges or longer sentences unless the accused agrees to plead guilty.[25] The prosecutors may also make an offer of dismissing certain charges or even suggesting minor penalties in order to get a confession. The Supreme Court in Brady v. United States[26] upheld the constitutionality of plea bargaining, emphasizing that voluntary guilty pleas in exchange for concessions are valid.
By contrast, in India, prosecutorial discretion is much more constrained. When it comes to charge-framing, the prosecutor may present arguments, but the final authority rests with the judge. The court independently examines the charge sheet and evidence before determining the charges. This principle was emphasized by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh[27], where it held that at the stage of charge-framing, the judge must assess whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and not merely rely on the prosecution’s version. This ensures judicial oversight over prosecutorial discretion.
India also takes a restricted approach to plea bargaining, which was formally introduced by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005. It applies only to offences punishable with less than seven years of imprisonment, excluding serious socio-economic crimes and offences against women or children. Judicial involvement is mandatory at every step, ensuring fairness and limiting prosecutorial dominance.
Finally, in sentencing, prosecutors in India have a limited advisory role. They may argue aggravating or mitigating circumstances, but the court alone decides the punishment, guided by statutory limits and judicial precedents. The Supreme Court in Santa Singh v. State of Punjab[28] stressed the role of the judge in sentencing, requiring courts to give the accused an opportunity to present mitigating factors before passing sentence. This demonstrates that unlike in the U.S., sentencing is firmly within judicial control, and prosecutorial recommendations do not carry binding authority.
Therefore, the balance of power is the major distinction between the two legal systems. The prosecutors in the U.S. are strong gatekeepers and they enjoy a wide discretion in charging, plea bargaining, and sentencing recommendations with very little judicial involvement. In India however, prosecutors have more of an assistive role with the court with discretion being highly regulated by judicial supervision at each level. This renders the Indian criminal system less susceptible to prosecutorial domination and at the same time more rigid relative to the flexible style of the prosecutor model in the United States.
Checks and Balances on Prosecutorial Power
Despite playing a key role in criminal cases, the powers vested within the prosecution are not absolute and are subject to important limitations specifically designed to ensure fairness and to consequently prevent abuse. One of the most significant limitations over these powers is the consistent supervisory jurisdiction of the judiciary. The courts exercise oversight at every stage of the criminal process, from the beginning of the trial i.e. charge-framing to conviction or acquittal and even at the stage of withdrawal of prosecution.
For instance, Under Section 360[29] the Public Prosecutor may seek withdrawal of a case, but such withdrawal is not automatic and can only be authorised by the Court. This supervision of the court ensures that the decision of the prosecution is not based solely on executive or political considerations.
A further structural limitation relates to the manner of appointment and training of prosecutors. The statute merely prescribes a minimum of seven years practice at the Bar as a qualification[30], but this alone does not guarantee the professional excellency required to conduct complex criminal trials. In the absence of formal training or continuing evaluation, many prosecutors struggle with forensic evidence, procedural complexities, and evolving legal standards, etc. leading to weak representation of the State’s case.
The scope of victim participation also presents a limitation. Although recent reforms have enhanced the role of victims, including the right to engage a private advocate, the law continues to subordinate the victim’s counsel to the authority of the Public Prosecutor. The role which a private counsel in such a situation can play is, comparable with that of a junior advocate conducting the case of his senior in a court.[31] While this ensures that prosecutions remain fair and is guided by broader societal interest rather than private sense of justice, it sometimes may even marginalize victim perspectives in the conduct of trials, particularly in sentencing and compensation proceedings.
Lastly, the independence of public prosecutors is further undermined by State governments administrative control over them. Especially in politically related cases, the absence of an autonomous Directorate of Prosecution means that executive interference remains a real risk. As a result, prosecutorial discretion may be guided more by political expediency rather than by the demands of justice.
All these limitations taken together reflect an uneasy balance. While the main reason for these limitations remain to be safeguards against prosecutorial overreach, however they also restrict the ability of prosecutors to act with independence, efficiency, and professional excellence.
Six Essential Reforms for Prosecution
The contemporary legal framework governing prosecution in India, while being statutorily sound, requires tremendous reforms to enhance its efficiency, independence, and credibility. The following action-oriented reforms are suggested to strengthen the prosecution system:
Strengthen Prosecutorial Independence: Establish an autonomous Directorate of Prosecution, financially and administratively isolated from the executive and State Governments. This autonomy is crucial to ensure that discretionary decisions, especially in politically sensitive cases, are guided solely by the demands of justice.
Mandate Early Prosecutorial Consultation: Statutorily mandated prosecutorial consultation during the investigative stage, particularly after the filing of the First Information Report (FIR) and before the final report is prepared. This advisory role, which does not encroach upon police investigation, will improve adherence to procedural safeguards, enhance the evidentiary value of collected material, and ensure evidence is trial-ready.
Enhance Professional Capacity: Move beyond the minimum qualification of seven years' practice. Implement rigorous, structured induction training, continuous legal education (CLE) modules, and periodic assessments focusing on forensic science, digital crimes, and procedural law. This will elevate courtroom performance and the overall standard of the profession.
Codify Withdrawal Criteria: Introduce exhaustive statutory guidelines governing the criteria for the withdrawal of prosecution. The exercise of this power must be subject to a required written justification and enhanced judicial scrutiny to ensure transparency, accountability, and prevent arbitrary or politically motivated decisions.
Expand Victim Participatory Rights: While preserving prosecutorial neutrality, expand the rights of victims' counsel in sentencing, compensation, and parole proceedings. This ensures that victim perspectives are not marginalized, balancing societal interest with the private sense of justice.
Modernize through Technology: Integrate technology as envisioned by the BNSS for investigation into prosecutorial practices. Implementing case management systems, digital evidence tracking tools, and AI-assisted legal research will improve efficiency, reduce delays, and minimize human error, leading to faster and more transparent justice delivery.
In essence, the only way the prosecution can effectively uphold its dual responsibility of safeguarding the rights of the accused while also ensuring justice not only for the victims but also for the society at large is through these reforms. Reforms aimed at autonomy, early involvement, professional development, accountability, victim participation, and technological modernization are the essential reforms that can effectively transform the prosecution from a passive trial agent into an active guardian of justice.
Conclusion: Transforming Justice Delivery
The prosecution serves as the cornerstone of the Indian criminal justice system. While acting as the representative of the State, it is the primary pillar which ensures the balancing of the rights of the accused, the victim, and the society at large. Contrary to common misconceptions, the central duty of the prosecution is not to secure convictions at all costs, rather it is to ensure that every trial conducted is a fair and impartial one. Trials which uphold the constitutional guarantee as well as strengthen the public faith in the justice delivery system are the kind of trials which the prosecution should seek to perform. While judicial oversight and the principle of prosecutorial neutrality remain strong, issues of political interference, weak professional training, delayed involvement at the investigative stage, and insufficient victim participation continue to hinder the efficiency of prosecutions.
The comparative analysis also demonstrated that while the Indian system does not experience the electoral politicisation of prosecution as is observed in the United States, it suffers from a lack of autonomy, lack of institutional support, and a lack of early involvement in the investigation process. A modernised, autonomous, and technologically advanced prosecuting system is more important than ever in a time of increasingly complex crimes, digital offences, and organised crime.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q) How has the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) changed the role of the Public Prosecutor?
A) The BNSS has primarily strengthened the institutional framework by explicitly outlining the powers and functions of the Directorate of Prosecution (DoP). This new structure introduces tiered supervision and mandated monitoring of cases (based on the severity of punishment) to ensure expeditious disposal, addressing a major lacuna in the previous CrPC.
Q) Can a Public Prosecutor be involved in the police investigation under the BNSS?
A) Currently, the BNSS retains the principle of separation between investigation and prosecution. The PP is generally not involved in the actual investigation (search, seizure, arrest).
Q) Can a victim hire a private advocate? What is their role during the trial?
A) Yes, a victim can hire a private advocate. However, the law stipulates that the private counsel must act under the direction of the Public Prosecutor. This ensures that the trial remains guided by broader societal interests (State-led) rather than a private sense of retribution.
Q) What is the biggest challenge to the independence of Indian Public Prosecutors?
A) The biggest challenge is the administrative control of the State Governments. Although the office is independent in principle, administrative and financial control makes prosecutors vulnerable to executive or political interference, particularly in high-profile or politically sensitive cases.
Q) How does technology integration (like Al) improve the prosecution system?
A) Integrating technology, as envisioned by the BNSS, allows for the use of case management systems and AI-assisted legal research. This helps in organizing vast amounts of digital evidence, reduces human error, cuts down administrative delays, and ultimately leads to faster and more transparent justice delivery.
Have ideas for strengthening India’s prosecution service? Leave a comment below and let’s shape policy together.
Follow our legal journey on our social media and keep learning.
Endnote
[1] India Legal, A Case for Independent Prosecutors (last modified Jan. 6, 2022), https://indialegallive.com/column-news/a-case-for-independent-prosecutors.
[2] Avory J - R v. Banks 1916 (2) KB 621.
[3] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, § 18, No. 46 of 2023, (India).
[4] Shiv Kumar v. Hukam Chand & Anr. (1999) 7 SCC 467.
[5] LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA, REPORT NO. 197: PUBLIC PROSECUTORS APPOINTMENTS (2006).
[6] AIR 2000 SC 1731 para 8.
[7] Id para 12.
[8] Id para 12.
[9] State of Maharashtra v. Surendra Pundlik Gadling & Ors.(2019) 5 SCC 178. para 28
[10] COMMITTEE ON REFORMS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOV’T OF INDIA, REPORT, VOL. I, at 127 ¶ 8.9 (Mar. 2003).
[11] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, § 193, No. 46 of 2023, (India).
[12] Ibid, § 193(2).
[13] D. Titus & M. Khullar, Role of Public Prosecutor in the Indian Legal System, 62 DPCE Online 1 (2024), https://doi.org/10.57660/dpceonline.2024.2088.
[14] LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA, 41ST REPORT ON THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1898, ¶ 18.26, at 152–53 (1967).
[15] R. Sarla v. T.S. Velu & Ors., (2000) 4 SCC 459
[16] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, § 338(2), No. 46 of 2023, (India).
[17] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, § 360, No. 46 of 2023, (India).
[18] The State of Bihar vs Ram Naresh Pandey, AIR 1957 SC 389.
[19] Subhash Chandra v. State (Chandigarh Administration) & Ors., 1980 AIR 423
[20] Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 8 March, 2006
[21] id
[22] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,§ 2(y),No. 46 of 2023, (India).
[23] Hem Singh (D) Through L.Rs. v. State of Uttaranchal (Now State of Uttarakhand) & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 828.
[24] (517 U.S. 456, 1996)
[25] Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (1978)
[26] (397 U.S. 742, 1970)
[27] 1977 AIR 2018
[28] (AIR 1976 SC 2386)
[29] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, § 360 No. 46 of 2023, (India).
[30] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, § 18(7) No. 46 of 2023, (India).
[31] Shiv Kumar v. Hukam Chand & Anr (1999) INSC 307.
Comments