In Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Prafulla Majhi (1977), how did the…
The court tested the specific notification against section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The designation of the office and the fact of consultation did not…
Choose your answer
In Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Prafulla Majhi (1977), how did the Calcutta High Court rule on the 1974 notification designating the Legal Remembrancer as ex officio Public Prosecutor for its Appellate Side?
Answer and explanation
Correct answer D
The court tested the specific notification against section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The designation of the office and the fact of consultation did not satisfy the statutory appointment requirements.
Option feedback
Option A
The office alone did not satisfy the applicable statutory appointment requirements.
Option B
Consultation did not cure the defective ex officio appointment.
Option C
The notification was issued under the 1973 Code and rescinded the older notification.
Option D
The court held that the notification did not comply with section 24 and the appeals filed in that capacity could not proceed as presented.
Practice for these exams
-
All India Bar Examination (AIBE)
Subject revision
See pack details on LawMint.net -
IIT Kharagpur LL.M. Entrance
Subject revision
See pack details on LawMint.net -
Jharkhand Judicial Services
-
CUET PG Law (LL.M.)
Subject revision
-
AILET PG
Subject revision
-
Supreme Court Law Clerk and Research Associate
Subject revision
-
Bihar Judicial Services
Subject revision
-
Uttarakhand Judicial Services
Subject revision