The Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed the court registry not to list any criminal appeals pertaining to the State of Punjab until the government notifies a list of public prosecutors in accordance with Section 18 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Samhita (BNSS) Act, 2023. The directive was issued during the hearing of Patiala Jatinder Singh @ Sonu v. State of Punjab (CRA-D-820-2019 (O&M)), with a bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjay Vashisth presiding over the matter.
Background of the Case:
The case involved an appeal filed by Jatinder Singh @ Sonu against his conviction, where Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh appeared as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant. The State of Punjab was represented by Mr. H.S. Deol, Senior Deputy Advocate General (DAG), and Mr. Sharan Sethi, Additional Advocate General, appeared for the State of Haryana.
During the hearing, the court was informed that the Punjab Government had not yet issued the necessary notification under Section 18 of the BNSS Act, 2023, to officially appoint public prosecutors for handling criminal cases and appeals in the state.
Legal Issue:
The crucial issue before the court revolved around Section 18 of the BNSS Act, 2023, which mandates the appointment of public prosecutors for every high court and district court by the Central or State Government in consultation with the concerned High Court. The absence of such appointments in the State of Punjab has brought criminal appeal hearings to a halt, as no prosecutor can represent the state in these cases until officially appointed.
Section 18 of the BNSS Act specifies that public prosecutors must be appointed to conduct prosecutions, appeals, and other criminal proceedings on behalf of the government. These appointments are vital for ensuring the proper representation of the state in criminal matters. However, as the Punjab Government had not completed the notification process, the court was left with no option but to delay the hearing of criminal appeals.
Court’s Observations:
Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma expressed concern over the delay and noted, “In the absence of notification and nomination in terms of Section 18 of the BNSS Act, no counsel can appear and argue criminal cases, especially appeals which are in continuation of the trial.” The court emphasized the importance of expediting the notification process to avoid a backlog of criminal cases.
The bench further observed that criminal appeals involving the State of Punjab would remain adjourned until the list of public prosecutors is duly notified. The court directed the registry not to list any criminal appeals before it until this issue is resolved.
In contrast, the State of Haryana, represented by Additional Advocate General Mr. Sharan Sethi, informed the court that a list of 11 public prosecutors had already been notified, and thus the state was prepared to proceed with its criminal appeals.
Court’s Directive to the Punjab Government:
The High Court, acknowledging the urgency of the matter, directed the Punjab Government to take immediate steps to notify the public prosecutors under Section 18 of the BNSS Act. The court warned that the delay in these appointments was directly impacting the adjudication of criminal appeals and could result in further procedural delays.
The bench also ordered that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Office of the Advocate General, Punjab, to expedite the process of finalizing and notifying the required list of public prosecutors.
