SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- K.T. Thomas and R.P. Sethi, JJ.

Cri. Appeal No. 345 of 1999. D/d. 17.10.2000.

T.N. Nagaraju - Appellant

Versus

State of Karnataka - Respondent

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 24 - Public Prosecutor - Public Prosecutor - Payment of special fees - Special Public Prosecutor who argued the criminal case before the High Court directed to be paid some additional amount as his special fees - Direction held to be improper - Practice of payment of such special fees would create very unwholesome precedent - Criminal jurisdiction cannot be used for awarding larges to se the public prosecutors.

[Para 4]

ORDER

The appellant in this case was one of the eight persons charge sheeted by the investigating agency for the murder of a lady by the name, Nagalambika. The appellant is said to have married that lady though he had another wife (Vijay Laxmi, PW 9) living at the same time. Nagalambika was murdered by throttling on the night of 5-10-1994. The appellant, his parents, his brothers and two sisters were made the accused for persecuting Nagalambika, while appellant, particularly, for murdering her and all the other accussed for criminal conspiracy and causing disappearance of the evidence of the murder.

2. The trial court acquitted two of the brothers of the appellant (accused Nos. 4 and 6), but convicted all the rest for various offences including the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the High Court acquitted all others except the appellant. Regarding the appellant the High Court found that circumstances are sufficient enough to establish his guilt for the murder of Nagalambika.

3. After hearing both sides we are satisfied that the concurrent findings arrived at by the two Courts is well merited and no exception can be taken to it. It is unnecessary for us to enumerate those circumstances once again or the details of the evidence in support thereof. Suffice it to say that there is no reason for us to dissent from the conclusion made by the two Courts regarding the guilt of the appellant.

4. But we have to refer to a disturbing direction contained in the impugned judgement. The Division Bench of the High Court directed that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- shall be paid to the Additional Special Public Prosecutor who argued the case in the High Court. It must be over and above the fees to which the said Public Prosecutor is legally entitled as per the terms of his appointment. How or why such a direction can be made has not been explained in the judgment. Criminal jurisdiction is not for awarding largesse to any one, much less to the Public Prosecutor. Hence, the said direction cannot be sustained a it would create a very unwholesome precedent. Law officers who are paid by the State have to discharge their duties to the best of their ability. They are not to be paid special fees for such work on the direction of the Court. We deprecate the said practice which should be nipped in the bud itself. We, therefore, delete that part of the direction from the impugned judgment.

5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Order accordingly.