Supreme Court: Deciding the matter related to continuation of G. Bhavani Singh as the Special Public Prosecutor in the case against S. Jayalalitha regarding disproportionate assets which was, on 15.04.2015, referred to a larger bench owing to difference of opinion of Madan B. Lokur and R. Banumathi, JJ, the 3 judge bench of Dipak Misra, P.C. Pant and R.K. Agrawal, JJ held that the appointment of Bhavani Singh as the Public Prosecutor for the trial did not make him eligible to prosecute the appeal on behalf of prosecuting agency before the High Court. Concurring with the opinion of Madan B. Lokur, J., the Court further explained that the appointment of a Public Prosecutor, as envisaged under Section 24(1); CrPC in the High Court is different than the appointment of a Public Prosecutor for the District Courts.
Having said that, another question that was posed before the Court was that whether annulment of appointment of Bhavani Singh as Public Prosecutor would entail de novo hearing of the appeal. Taking note of the fact that the appeal has been heard on day to day basis and the learned judge is in the process of preparation of the judgment, it was held that there is no justification to direct for de novo hearing of the appeal, regard being had to the duties of the appellate Judge i.e. to evaluate, appreciate and consider each material aspect brought on record before rendering the judgment especially in a corruption case. Stating that a judge must avoid all kind of weakness and vacillation while giving an objective judgment, the Court said that the said responsibility of the judges cannot be abdicated or abandoned or ostracized, even remotely, solely because there might not have been proper assistance by the counsel appearing for the parties. K. Anbazhagan v. State of Karnataka, 2015 SCC OnLine SC 389, decided on 27.04.2015
