Site navigation

In Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Prafulla Majhi (Calcutta High Court, 1977), what…

Section 24(5) of the then Code required at least seven years of practice as an advocate. The Calcutta High Court held the appointment before it invalid because the appointee…

Choose your answer

In Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Prafulla Majhi (Calcutta High Court, 1977), what defect invalidated the ex officio appointment as High Court Public Prosecutor under the then Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?

Select one answer
Answer and explanation

Correct answer A

Section 24(5) of the then Code required at least seven years of practice as an advocate. The Calcutta High Court held the appointment before it invalid because the appointee lacked the statutory qualification.

Option feedback

Option A

The court identified the eligibility requirement in section 24(5) as a decisive obstacle to the appointment.

Option B

Section 24(1) permitted the Central or the State Government to appoint after consultation.

Option C

The provision required practice as an advocate. It did not prescribe service as a judge.

Option D

Section 24(1) specifically provided for appointments to conduct proceedings in the High Court.

Practice for these exams

Related question papers

Related exam syllabi

Related questions in this topic