Can a private lawyer prosecute appeals under Section 378 CPC?

Question

Accepted Answer

A Private Lawyer Cannot Prosecute Appeals Under Section 378 CPC

A private lawyer cannot prosecute appeals under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), as this section exclusively permits Deputy Public Prosecutors (DPPs) in regular government service to act on behalf of the Public Prosecutor in such matters. While Section 379 of the CPC allows for ad hoc appointments of advocates, the validity of such appointments for specific appeals, like the one involving Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, has been a subject of legal contention.
Exclusive Authority of Deputy Public Prosecutors

Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code explicitly stipulates that only Deputy Public Prosecutors (DPPs) who are part of the regular government service are authorised to appear on behalf of the Public Prosecutor in criminal appeals. This provision underscores the principle that the prosecution of appeals, a critical function of the state, is to be conducted by public officers appointed for that purpose. This ensures a consistent and accountable prosecution process, managed by individuals directly under the purview of the government.
Limitations on Ad Hoc Appointments

The Criminal Procedure Code, specifically Section 379, does provide a mechanism for the appointment of advocates on an ad hoc basis. However, the applicability and relevance of this section in specific appeals, such as the prosecution of Anwar Ibrahim's sodomy case, have been questioned. In this instance, the Court of Appeal (COA) found that Section 379 had no bearing on the appointment of Muhammad Shafee, suggesting that the circumstances of his engagement did not align with the provisions for ad hoc appointments as interpreted by the court.
Legal Challenges to Private Prosecution

The core of the legal debate has centred on whether private lawyers can undertake the prosecution of appeals, particularly when compared to the roles and limitations defined for DPPs. Karpal Singh, representing the appellant, argued that the COA erred in upholding the validity of Muhammad Shafee's appointment. He contended that Section 378 clearly restricts such appearances to government-employed DPPs, and that any ad hoc appointments must strictly adhere to the provisions outlined in Section 379, which, in this case, was deemed irrelevant by the COA.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Can a private lawyer prosecute appeals under Section 378 CPC?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends