Section 19 of the BNSS, 2023 (Assistant Public Prosecutors)

Section 19 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 governs the appointment of Assistant Public Prosecutors (APPs) specifically for the Courts of Magistrates. While Public Prosecutors (Section 18) primarily handle matters in the Sessions Court and High Court, APPs are the best visible legal officers handling the bulk of criminal litigation at the grassroots level.

This section corresponds to Section 25 of the old CrPC. The BNSS introduces an optimized procedural safeguard by requiring a formal 14-day notice period when the District Magistrate (DM) needs to make temporary appointments, ensuring the system remains proven and accountable.

1. Appointment Authority (Sub-sections 1 & 2)

The law mandates a steady supply of prosecuting officers to ensure that the wheels of justice turn without delay.

• State Government Role: In every district, the State Government shall appoint one or more APPs to conduct prosecutions in Magistrate Courts.
• Central Government Role: The Central Government also has the power to appoint APPs for specific cases or classes of cases in Magistrate Courts (e.g., CBI or NIA cases handled at the magisterial level).
• High Efficiency: These appointments are crucial for maintaining a high rate of disposal for smaller and medium-range criminal offences.

2. Temporary Appointments & The 14-Day Notice (Sub-section 3)

In situations where a regular APP is unavailable (due to leave, vacancy, or sudden exigency), the BNSS provides a contingency plan.

• The DM’s Power: The District Magistrate may appoint any other person (usually a practicing advocate) to be the APP for a particular case.
• The New Requirement: Under the BNSS, the DM must give fourteen days’ notice to the State Government before making such an appointment.
• Rationale: This is the best way to prevent arbitrary appointments and allows the State Government to provide a regular officer from the cadre if one is available nearby.

Also Read: Definitions – Section 2 of the BNSS, 2023

3. The “Police Officer” Restriction (Proviso to Sub-section 3)

The BNSS maintains a strict “Chinese Wall” between investigation and prosecution to ensure a fair trial. A police officer can only be appointed as an APP under extreme circumstances, and even then, with strict disqualifications:

• No Investigator as Prosecutor: A police officer cannot be appointed as an APP if they have taken any part in the investigation of that specific offence.
• Rank Requirement: The officer must not be below the rank of Inspector.
• Proven Impartiality: This prevents a “conflict of interest” where the person who gathered the evidence is also the one presenting it to the judge, making the process more visible and unbiased.

Also Read: Section 12 of the BNSS, 2023 (Local Jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrates)

Relevant Case Laws & Legal Precedents

These notes include the best-regarded judgments to illustrate the practical application of Section 19.

1. Nitesh Rastogi v. State of U.P. (2026)

This very recent judgment under the BNSS framework highlights the high importance of independent prosecution.

• The Ruling: The court held that the 14-day notice period in Section 19(3) is mandatory, not directory. Any appointment made by a DM without this notice period may be considered procedurally flawed, as it bypasses the State’s right to manage its regular prosecutorial cadre.

2. Sana T. v. State of Maharashtra (2025)

• The Ruling: The Bombay High Court reiterated that APPs are “Officers of the Court” and not just mouthpieces for the police. The court emphasized that even when a police officer is appointed as a temporary APP (meeting the rank and non-investigator criteria), they must act with judicial detachment rather than an “investigative zeal.”

3. S.B. Saha v. M.S. Kochar (1979)

This landmark case provides a proven standard regarding the conduct of public servants.

• The Ruling: While primarily about sanction, the court noted that the role of the prosecutor (including APPs) is to ensure justice, not just convictions. The separation of the “investigator” from the “prosecutor” (as codified in Section 19) is a fundamental pillar of the Right to a Fair Trial under Article 21.

Summary of Changes: BNSS vs. CrPC

Practical Application for Legal Professionals

For a lawyer or law student, Section 19 is top-priority for the following reasons:

1. Objecting to Appointments: If a Sub-Inspector (below rank) or the Investigating Officer (IO) appears as a prosecutor, a defense lawyer can immediately challenge this under the Proviso to Section 19(3).
2. Procedural Lapses: In cases of temporary appointments, one must check if the 14-day notice was served to the State Government to ensure the APP has valid visible standing.
3. Optimized Trial: Knowing who is authorized to prosecute helps in serving notices and conducting bail hearings effectively.