This Article is written by Arushi Chopra (pursuing BBA LLB from Symbiosis Law School, Noid)

A public prosecutor is regarded as one of the most important pillars of the injustice system as he is responsible for the effective disposal of the case. He is the lawyer appointed to plead cases on behalf of the state government. However, his function is not to ensure that the accused is convicted but is required to put the relevant evidence and ensure due process is followed[1]. Thus, often the axiom that a public prosecutor wins despite the fact whether the accused is convicted or acquitted[2] is used to signify the scope of functions of public prosecutors. The most important function of a public prosecutor is to uphold rule of law and principles of fairness in the justice delivery system.
The research question that the following article seeks to explore is the importance and functions of public prosecutors in as far as the protection of rule of law and fairness is regarded as against the protection of interests of just one party. The article further analyses the best bakery case pointedly on the issue of whether the conduct of the public prosecutor was outside his scope of functions leading to the travesty of justice.
India follows the adversarial system and majorly goes with the due process model. This implies that the state tries to balance the rights of both the victim and the accused. Public prosecutors are one such mechanism whereby the state ensures that the evidence is placed before the court in a fair manner. Being the officer of the state which is responsible to take all possible actions to uphold the rule of law and ensure that the rights of people are not suppressed, a public prosecutor is expected to be the guardian of justice in the justice delivery system right from the stage of investigation till the stage where the final trial is held. The principle of audialterm partem or right to be heard which is provided for in the Constitution of India under Articles 14 and 21 has to be satisfactorily be ensured by the public prosecutor. The courts have, time and again, asserted impartiality and fairness which is expected from public prosecutors and it has been held that the office of public prosecutor is a public office in nature and hence is made for a social purpose[3]. There must be a clear difference set out between the private prosecutors and the public prosecutors. While the function of a private prosecutor is to secure a conviction and protect the interests of the party, the function of a public prosecutor is different in this regard. The public prosecutor is not required to secure the interest of only one party but his function is to be understood in light of the guardian of justice who needs to aid the court in delivering a fair judgement. It is to be noted that the functions of public prosecution in the criminal justice system is innumerable and start right from the investigation stage and continue till the trial is completed. However, the research paper is limited to the function of being the protector of justice and fairness and being impartial to both parties.
The Best Bakery Case[4]
The offence in concern was that a mob burned the best bakery which was run by a Sheikh family which killed at least 14 people in the Gujarat carnage. However, when the matter went up to the court, all the accused were acquitted due to a lack of incriminating evidence against them. The case was taken up on an appeal on the grounds that the due process of law was not followed during the investigation and trial stage which resulted in the wrongful acquittal of the accused persons. The arguments included subversion of justice when witness protection was not carried out and partiality towards the accused. The issue within the scope of the article was the improper conduction of trial by the public prosecutor which was contested in the court.
In the given case, the complainant argued that the public prosecutor was favouring the accused. The public prosecutor was alleged to have not ensured protection of the star witness even when it was clearly evident that all witnesses were turning hostile. Further, he did not bring into account the inherent contradictions in the statements of witnesses. Further, the investigating officer was not present during the trial and the public prosecutor did not take this disability into account. The court, in the appeal, objected to the partiality done by the public prosecutor who acted more as a defence counsel rather than performing his functions. The court further made a distinction between a prosecutor and a public prosecutor and held that the role and function of a public prosecutor are different from the prosecutor and he is not required to secure a conviction at all costs but needs to ensure that impartiality is maintained. The court directed the state to appoint another public prosecutor for the fair disposal of the case.
Analysis and Conclusion
Justice and fairness are the primary embodiments of all justice delivery systems. The primary function of a public prosecutor is to ensure that justice is done in all stages of the criminal system. The public prosecution should provide suggestions to the police with regards to the investigation of an offence, place proper evidence and statements before the court and ensure that the trial happens by following due process. If the public prosecutor is biased towards any one party or does not perform his functions properly, it would lead to the complete travesty of justice. The public prosecutor should ensure that investigation is done properly and present all evidence before the court for making its decision. In the best bakery case, the facts and circumstances are enough to hold that the public prosecutor did not work to ensure fairness and instead favoured the accused at all stages.
Though there existed a prosecutor and a defence counsel in a criminal trial, a new post of the public prosecutor was made by the legislature. This shows the importance of this role in the legal system. The public prosecutor was held to be a public office that represents the state and ensure that all processes are carried out while following the due process of law. The legislative scheme under Section 24 of the criminal procedure code which ensures that the public prosecutor is left independent implies that the legislature wanted the public prosecutor to act as an impartial body. Though in a criminal case, the state represents the victim, the role of public prosecution which is to represent the state must not be inferred to defend the victim. The state should be inferred as the sovereign body to ensure that justice is carried out and the rights of both the accused and victim is protected. The conduct of the public prosecutor, in this case, was thus clearly out of the scope of his powers and he did not complete his function which proved fatal to the criminal justice system. Thus, impartiality and ensuring that due process is followed is the prime function of the public prosecutor.
[1]Sandeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 16 SCC 623
[2]Dandurand, Yvon, (2007), ‘The role of prosecutors in promoting and strengthening the rule of law’ Crime Law and Social Change, pp 247-259
[3]Mukul Dal v. Union of India (1988) 3 SCC 144
[4]ZahiraHabibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158