Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

27. In the judgment of this Court, reported as Ajay Kumar v. State 1986 Crl LJ 932, the court, commenting on the impartial role of the public prosecutor particularly a special public prosecutor appointed to conduct the criminal proceedings in that case, held as follows:

The public prosecutor is a functionary of the State appointed to assist the Court in the conduct of a trial, the object of which is basically to find the truth and to punish the accused if he is found guilty according to the known norms of law and procedure. It is no part of his obligation to secure conviction of an accused, in any event, or at all costs. Nor is he intended to play a partial role or become party to the persecution of the accused or lend support, directly or indirectly, to a denial of justice or of fair trial to the accused. His plain task is to represent the State's point of view on the basis of the material which could be legitimately brought before the Court at the trial. If all State actions must be just, fair and reasonable, he would be under no less duty as a functionary of the State to discharge his functions as a public prosecutor in an equally just, fair and reasonable manner irrespective of the outcome of the trial. In that sense, he is part of the judicature system, and an upright public prosecutor has no friends and foes in Court. He has no prejudices, preconceived notions, bias, hostility or his own axe to grind. He represents public interest, but is not a partisan in the narrow sense of the term.