Court Rejects State's Appeal, Emphasizes Duty in Sensitive Cases Over Technicalities
In a landmark judgment, the Madras High Court has upheld the decision to reimburse travel expenses for a Special Public Prosecutor, rejecting the State Government's appeal against the reimbursement. The case involved the tragic death of a young boy, where the victim's mother requested B. Mohan, an advocate, to lead the prosecution due to the family's trust in him. Appointed by the State, Mohan handled the case across multiple districts, including appearances in Namakkal and Madurai for 117 hearings, and assisted the High Court during the appeal stage.
The State initially paid his basic appearance fees but refused to cover travel expenses, citing technical rules that do not explicitly permit travel allowances for private advocates appointed as public prosecutors. The High Court, presided by Chief Justice Mr. Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, dismissed the State's appeal, emphasizing that reimbursement is a reasonable expectation in such exceptional cases. The court noted that expecting an advocate to bear travel and lodging costs from daily appearance fees is unfair and that professional fees should not be consumed entirely by travel costs.
The judgment highlighted that Mohan's assistance during the appeal stage was essential and could not be termed "unauthorized," despite the lack of a formal appointment order. The court directed the State to clear pending fees and travel expenses within four weeks, stressing that the decision was based on unique facts and will not serve as a routine precedent for other general cases.
Bottom line:-
Advocate appointed as Special Public Prosecutor entitled to reimbursement of travel expenses incurred during the execution of official duties in exceptional cases.
Statutory provision(s): Advocates Act
Secretary to Government, Home Department v. B. Mohan, (Madras)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2940474
