Fake Reviews: The Dark Side of Google My Business

Discover the risks of fake reviews and learn practical tips to spot and prevent your online reputation. Don't let fake reviews destroy your business!

Google My Business is an online platform that assists businesses in managing their online presence across Google, including Search and Maps. With the growing importance of online reviews, Google My Business has become a go-to platform for businesses to showcase their reputation. However, fake reviews on Google My Business are a growing concern for businesses, as they can severely impact their reputation and customer trust.

This article focuses on the issue of fake reviews and their impact on businesses, customers, and the overall online ecosystem.

Fake Reviews on Google My Business

Fake reviews are those reviews that are written by individuals who have not used the product or service they are reviewing. These reviews are usually generated by fake review service providers who charge businesses for positive reviews or generate negative reviews for their competitors. The impact of fake reviews is significant, as they can influence potential customers to make a purchase or not. Fake reviews not only affect businesses but also impact the overall online ecosystem, as it creates distrust among customers towards online reviews.

Tactics used by fake review service providers

Fake review service providers use various tactics to generate fake reviews. They use bot accounts to generate large numbers of reviews, post multiple reviews from the same account, use review farms to generate fake reviews, and pay individuals to write reviews.

 

Failure of Google's reporting system

Google My Business has a system to report fake reviews, but the system has its limitations. It relies on algorithms to detect fake reviews, and in some cases, it can be challenging to distinguish between genuine and fake reviews. Also, fake review service providers constantly find ways to circumvent Google's system, making it a never-ending battle.

 

Law on Fake Reviews on E-commerce Websites

In India, the Department of Consumer Affairs recently released new guidelines that aim to prevent the sale of goods and services based on fake reviews on e-commerce platforms. Failure to comply with the guidelines can result in penalties for the e-commerce platform.

Questions related to Search Engines

As search engines play a vital role in shaping customer opinions, they also have a responsibility to ensure that the information they display is accurate and genuine. In the case of fake reviews, search engines have a responsibility to prevent the display of fake reviews and dishonest acts. The consequences of allowing fake reviews can be severe, as it can impact customer trust.

Probable Solution

 To address the issue of fake reviews, search engines, and e-commerce platforms must work together to develop effective solutions. This includes implementing measures to identify and remove fake reviews, as well as educating consumers about the importance of accuracy and transparency in review systems. One potential solution is to implement a system of verified reviews, in which reviews are only accepted by verified customers.

Conclusion

Fake reviews are a serious issue that can badly affect businesses and consumers alike. By working together and implementing effective measures to filter out fake reviews, search engines and e-commerce platforms can promote transparency and build trust with their customers.

Social Media Post and Cyber Law

 

 

Introduction: social media has become a part and portion of our daily life and on regular basis most of us remain engaged in the social media by posting some text or picture or video or otherwise.  The burning question in this regard is liability of a person who made a post in social media.

To be more precise, what is the liability of a person who posted something on the social media which seems to be defamatory to another.

What is defamation:

As per section 499 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 defamation is

“Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person. Explanation 1.—It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives. Explanation 2.—It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. Explanation 3.—An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation. Explanation 4.—No imputation is said to harm a person’s reputa­tion, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgrace­ful. Illustrations

(a) A says—“Z is an honest man; he never stole B’s watch”; in­tending to cause it to be believed that Z did steal B’s watch. This is defamation, unless it fall within one of the exceptions.

(b) A is asked who stole B’s watch. A points to Z, intending to cause it to be believed that Z stole B’s watch. This is defama­tion unless it fall within one of the exceptions.

(c) A draws a picture of Z running away with B’s watch, intending it to be believed that Z stole B’s watch. This is defamation, unless it fall within one of the exceptions. First Exception.—Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published.—It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact. Second Exception.—Public conduct of public servants.—It is not defamation to express in a good faith any opinion whatever re­specting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. Third Exception.—Conduct of any person touching any public question.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. Illustration It is not defamation in A to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting Z’s conduct in petitioning Government on a public question, in signing a requisition for a meeting on a public question, in presiding or attending a such meeting, in forming or joining any society which invites the public support, in voting or canvassing for a particular candidate for any situa­tion in the efficient discharges of the duties of which the public is interested. Fourth Exception.—Publication of reports of proceedings of Courts.—It is not defamation to publish substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court of Justice, or of the result of any such proceedings. Explanation.—A Justice of the Peace or other officer holding an inquiry in open Court preliminary to a trial in a Court of Jus­tice, is a Court within the meaning of the above section. Fifth Exception.—Merits of case decided in Court or conduct of witnesses and others concerned.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by a Court of Justice, or respecting the conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent, in any such case, or respecting the character of such person, as far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. Illustrations

(a) A says—“I think Z’s evidence on that trial is so contradic­tory that he must be stupid or dishonest”. A is within this exception if he says this is in good faith, in as much as the opin­ion which he expresses respects Z’s character as it appears in Z’s conduct as a witness, and no further.

(b) But if A says—“I do not believe what Z asserted at that trial because I know him to be a man without veracity”; A is not within this exception, in as much as the opinion which he express of Z’s character, is an opinion not founded on Z’s conduct as a witness. Sixth Exception.—Merits of public performance.—It is not defa­mation to express in good faith any opinion respecting the merits of any performance which its author has submitted to the judgment of the public, or respecting the character of the author so far as his character appears in such performance, and no further. Explanation.—A performance may be substituted to the judgment of the public expressly or by acts on the part of the author which imply such submission to the judgment of the public. Illustrations

(a) A person who publishes a book, submits that book to the judgment of the public.

(b) A person who makes a speech in public, submits that speech to the judgment of the public.

(c) An actor or singer who appears on a public stage, submits his acting or signing in the judgment of the public.

(d) A says of a book published by Z—“Z’s book is foolish; Z must be a weak man. Z’s book is indecent; Z must be a man of impure mind”. A is within the exception, if he says this in good faith, in as much as the opinion which he expresses of Z respects Z’s character only so far as it appears in Z’s book, and no further.

(e) But if A says—“I am not surprised that Z’s book is foolish and indecent, for he is a weak man and a libertine”. A is not within this exception, in as much as the opinion which he expresses of Z’s character is an opinion not founded on Z’s book. Seventh Exception.—Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority over another.—It is not defamation in a person having over another any authority, either conferred by law or arising out of a lawful contract made with that other, to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates. Illustration A Judge censuring in good faith the conduct of a witness, or of an officer of the Court; a head of a department censuring in good faith those who are under his orders; a parent censuring in good faith a child in the presence of other children; a school-master, whose authority is derived from a parent, censuring in good faith a pupil in the presence of other pupils; a master censuring a servant in good faith for remissness in service; a banker censur­ing in good faith the cashier of his bank for the conduct of such cashier as such cashier—are within this exception. Eighth Exception.—Accusation preferred in good faith to autho­rised person.—It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation. Illustration If A in good faith accuse Z before a Magistrate; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a servant, to Z’s master; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, and child, to Z’s father—A is within this exception. Ninth Exception.—Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other’s interests.—It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the inter­ests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good. Illustrations

(a) A, a shopkeeper, says to B, who manages his business—“Sell nothing to Z unless he pays you ready money, for I have no opin­ion of his honesty”. A is within the exception, if he has made this imputation on Z in good faith for the protection of his own interests.

(b) A, a Magistrate, in making a report of his own superior offi­cer, casts an imputation on the character of Z. Here, if the imputation is made in good faith, and for the public good, A is within the exception. Tenth Exception.—Caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed or for public good.—It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against another, provided that such caution be intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person in whom that person is inter­ested, or for the public good.”

 

Freedom of speech:

Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India states that, all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression. The philosophy behind this Article lies in the Preamble of the Constitution, where a solemn resolve is made to secure to all its citizen, liberty of thought and expression. The exercise of this right is, however, subject to reasonable restrictions for certain purposes being imposed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.

 

Section 66A of Information Technology Act:

Section 66A of Information & Technology Act 2000 (IT Act), was quashed by the Supreme Court of India in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, due to ambiguity in the definition of the word ‘offensive’ in the Section. The section stated that sending any offensive message to a computer or any other communication device would be an offence. Such unfettered power, under section 66A, was misused by the Government in curtailing and suppressing people’s freedom of speech and expression and hence repealed.

 

How and where to complaint:

Anybody who has been the victim of online defamation can file a complaint with the Cyber Crime Investigation Cell via the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal.

Yet, it is important to highlight that filing a cyber defamation case against someone is a serious matter, since the act of making a complaint puts the accused's reputation in jeopardy.

Furthermore, the burden of establishing that he or she has been defamed falls fully on the complainant, and if he or she is unable to do so, the defendant has the right to sue for defamation, false and frivolous complaint, and damages.

 

Provisions Governing Online Defamation In India

Section 499, Indian Penal Code

This section says that whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.

 

Section 500, Indian Penal Code

This section provides for punishment. Any person held liable under section 499 will be punishable with imprisonment of two years or fine or both.

 

Section 469, Indian Penal Code

This section deals with the forgery, in this if anyone creates false document or fake account by which it harms the reputation of a person. The punishment of this offence can extend up to 3 years and fine.

 

Elements Of Defamation

·         The statement should be made – Statement can be made orally by words or visible gestures and by written statement intended to be read.

·         The statement must refer to the plaintiff – The defamatory statement made to the person shall be expressed or implied. Name of the plaintiff shall not be necessarily mentioned.

·         The statement must be defamatory – The most important essential of the offence is that the statement must be defamatory and untrue.

·         The intention of the doer – The person making the statement must know that the statement published will damage the reputation of another person.

·         The statement should be false – The statement published should be forced because the truth is a defence to defamation. The law does not punish anyone publishing the truth.

·         The statement must be published – Publication of statement to a third person other than the person being defamed makes the person liable for the offence.

·         Statement must cause injury – The statement made should in some way harm or injure the plaintiff.

 

Burden Of Proving Defamation

The liability to prove the statement made is defamatory and untrue lies upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has to prove that the statement was made and that the statement shall be published, or heard by a person other than the person being defamed. The statement made should be false and untrue and must cause injury to the person being defamed. He/she has to prove that the statement made is referred to him/her.

 

Defamation and its Nature:

·         Defamation by nature is both a civil and criminal offence.

·         In civil law, defamation is punishable under the Law of Torts by imposing punishment in the form of damages awarded to the aggrieved party.

·         In Criminal law, Defamation is a bailable, non-cognizable offence and can be compounded.

Criminal Defamation:

·         In matters of criminal defamation, imprisonment can be awarded, as per Indian Penal Code (IPC) section 500.

·         Under a criminal suit, the intention of the allegation must involve a criminality, i.e. to defame, with malicious intent.

·         Must be established beyond reasonable doubt that the action was meant for lowering, harming the reputation of the affected party.

Case law on Social Media Post:

Allahabad HC stays criminal proceedings against man booked for Facebook Post expressing anguish over wife’s death during Medical Treatment; Ashok Kumar Gautam v. State of UP Application U/S 482 No. - 7716 of 2022.

Gauhati High Court grants bail to writer who allegedly questioned Martyr status of 22 CRPF involved in anti naxal operation; Sikha Sarma v. State of Assam, 2021 SCC OnLine Gau 1070, decided on 19-04-2021.

Conclusion:

Defamation is antithetical to reputation, fame, public image, and is a valued asset for an individual. The courts have balanced freedom of speech, expression, and dignity with the right to life with dignity. The wisdom of lawmakers is reflected in treating slander and label at par with each other, and discouraging malicious intent to harm.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/social-media-post-cyber-law-prithwish-ganguli

Fundamentals of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Part IV

Fundamentals of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Part IV

 

Types of Police Reports

 

Police reports are different according to the incidents. Types of police reports include:

 

·        Arrest reports: An arrest report, also known as an arrest record, outlines claims or charges levelled against a person. Upon the arrest of a suspect, usually by a representative of the court who signed the arrest warrant, the arrest report comprises a victim's accusations about a perpetrator as well as all of the information from the first report of the occurrence. Fingerprint information may also be included in arrest records, as well as the amount of bail set by the court.

 

·        Investigative reports: A police investigator or another investigating officer may undertake an investigation when a case is begun by submitting a police report. While the Right to Information Act (RTI) makes certain police information available to the public, forensic reports are not made public in order to avoid impeding an alleged suspect's trial. Insurance firms and private detectives, for example, can undertake their own investigations in addition to the police. Yet, the authorities are not looking into these accusations. Traffic updates A police traffic report describes the violation committed by a motorist and the offence acknowledged by him, as well as his personal information, name, licence number, tag number, and automobile model number.

 

·        Supplemental police reports: When a police report has to be altered, an officer might request an extra report that includes the updated or corrected information. The reporting officer may accidentally omit information or wrongly type an error in the original report. In the event of a nighttime collision, any images taken by the officer at the time do not clearly display the specifics of the accident. The additional supplementary pages are added to the first report and marked as the original report; no changes may be made to the initial report.

 

·        Witness reports: During police interviews with witnesses to traffic accidents or crimes, officers record remarks on their reports. These witness reports support the initial event or injury report, although they are often handled in various methods. The original witness report also includes a large blank section of a witness form for handing out a report regarding a traffic accident or injury report. A witness will frequently write their account on a blank piece of paper. In the event of an accident or injury, witness reports must be submitted following an interview with the victim.

 

·        Administrative reports: Police personnel and corporate business connection organisations must keep administrative records equivalent to non-police firms. Such reports may include statistical information on detention, tasks, budget items, and other daily activities. When a victim or a member of the public seeks information under the Right to Information Act (RTI), the request is recorded in an administrative report and made available by a police department officer.

 

·        Internal affairs reports : An officer is frequently compelled to file an inquiry into internal affairs as part of the law enforcement department's check-and-balance accountability. On internal affairs reports, these inquiries are recorded as charges of misbehaviour. Each accusation yields one of four results: sustained (the accusation is proven); unsustained (the charge lacks adequate evidence to support or refute it); unfounded (the event did not occur or was not based on facts discovered during the investigation); or exonerated (the alleged incident did occur in fact, but the action of the officer was considered to be reasonable and lawful).

 

Investigation [2(h)]

The term "investigation" is defined under Section 2(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Investigation comprises any processes under this Code for the acquisition of evidence performed by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a Magistrate in this regard. The investigation of an offence consists of:

·        Proceeding to the spot.

·        Ascertainment of facts and circumstances of the case.

·        Discovery and arrest of the suspect.

·        Collection of evidence which may include:

·        Examination of persons concerned and reducing their statement to writing.

·        Search and seizure of places and things respectively considered necessary.

Case Law Discussed: In the case of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill (AIR 1996 SC 309) If the magistrate believes that the accused was wrongfully freed, he has the authority to take notice of the matter and direct that the accused be tried for the same offence. But, if he decides to dismiss the case and the complainant has filed a 'protest petition,' the magistrate has the authority to take action. In this instance, a senior police officer slapped a senior lady IAS officer on the backside at a party in the sight of an exclusive gathering, and the Magistrate accepted the final report, filed by the police in the case initiated by the lady officer under Section 144, without giving explanations. As a result, the Supreme Court overturned the ruling and reinstated the case, instructing the Magistrate to proceed with the case notwithstanding the complainant's concerns under Section 210 of the CrPC.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fundamentals of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Part III

 

Fundamentals of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Part III

 

Basic concepts and definition

Bailable and non-bailable offences [2(a)]

A bailable offence is one in which the defendant (the person defending himself in a criminal court) may be released upon payment of bail. These are the situations under which bail is automatically granted. If a person is detained under a non-bailable presence, he does not have the right to bail. Nonetheless, the law provides particular attention to giving bail where the accused is under the age of sixteen, a woman, ill or infirm, or if the court is persuaded that it is right and proper for any other specific cause to grant release rather than reject bail.

 

Cognizable and non-cognizable offences (154)

Offenses are classified into several sorts, but we shall concentrate on two: cognizable offences and non-cognizable offences. Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. discusses Cognizable Offense. Section 2(c) of the Cr.P.C. defines it as an offence in which a police officer can arrest the prisoner without a warrant and begin an inquiry without the court's consent. These are the offences that are usually extremely serious and horrific in character. Rape, murder, abduction, dowry death, and so forth. Because of their terrible and heinous character, all cognizable offences are non-bailable. Non-cognizable Offense is defined under Section 2(1) of the Cr.P.C. It is defined as an offence for which a police officer does not have the right to arrest without a warrant. These are offences that are not significant or are typically minor in nature. Assault, cheating, forgery, slander, and so on. Because they are not significant, non-cognizable offences are frequently bailable.

 

Section 154

Information in cognizable cases

·         Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may require.

·         The informant shall be given a free copy of the information recorded under subsection (1) as soon as possible.

·         Any person aggrieved by a refusal by an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in subsection (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned, who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an Inquest to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the case of a refusal to record the information referred to in subsection (1)

According to the specific law, an officer can register an F.I.R., take cognizance of, and arrest a person without requesting prior court approval. If she or he has "reason to suspect" that a person committed the crime and believes that arrest is a necessary step. The officer must then have the detention validated by the appropriate judicial magistrate within 24 hours after arrest. Police officers can also undertake a preliminary inquiry before filing an F.I.R. to double-check the facts, but the obligation is entirely on him. This is due to the fact that if the Police Officer does not file an F.I.R. at the time the information is received.

 

Charge [2(b)]

Charge is defined in Section 2(b) of the Criminal Process Code as any head of a charge where the charge comprises more than one head. The legal definition in the code is not comprehensive enough for a layperson to understand. Alternatively, the word might simply be understood to mean as a "accusation". It is the specific charge as recognised by the Magistrate or the Court, based on the prima facie evidence presented against the accused.

 

Purpose of Charge

According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused should be informed of the crime for which he has been charged. The primary purpose of prosecution is to inform the accused of the crime for which he or she has been charged and to prepare a defense. The accused should be informed from the beginning of the charges against him. All accused have a right to know what the prosecution has against them. The underlying principle of criminal law in informing the accused of the charge is to give each individual an equal opportunity to prepare a defense and obtain justice. It should be noted that in the case of serious crimes, the law requires the indictment to be accurately and clearly worded, accurately and clearly read and explained to the accused. 

 

Police report [173(2)]

Section 2(r) of the CrPC defines the term "police report," which refers to a report sent by a police officer to a Magistrate under Section 173. (2). The report must be submitted in the manner specified by the State Government in clauses (a) to (g) of sub-section (2) of Section 173. The police report submitted in this phase is referred to as the Finish Report. If this report involves an attempt of a crime by an accused individual, that report is frequently termed the "charge-sheet" or the "challan".

A judge cannot interfere with his legal and judicial duties until he has received the final report from the police under section 173. Nor can a judge have the option of issuing a warrant for a police Inquest. found M.L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapur [AIR 1967 SC 528]. A judge who has dismissed a police report has the right to review his order and demand "charge sheets". If the complainant and the accused filed complaints against each other, but the court does not have a police report and statements about the complaint of the accused. This was held to prejudice the accused in properly reporting his defense, and the accused was acquitted. A police "charge sheet" correlates with a criminal complaint filed by a private individual. After submitting the payment form, the research and preparation phase begins. Based on the document provided by the police, the magistrate can consider the crime. If the sub-inspector of the police, after the Inquest and the questioning of up to ten witnesses, called the case "an error of the case", the judge, accepting the order of the record, fixed it as a court order and that the police inspector could not reopen the case by filing charges after a re-Inquest.

 

Inquest report

The term "Inquest" is not directly defined in the Code. The purpose of the inquiry is to request a legal or judicial inquiry to determine the circumstances. According to The Black's Law Dictionary, the term "inquest" refers to an Inquest, assisted by doctors or sometimes by a jury, into the death of a person who died under suspicious circumstances or  in prison. The rules on the Inquest protocol are given in Chapter XII of the Code. The inquest report was conducted mainly to find out the causes of unnatural death. In the event of an unnatural death, the circumstances must be investigated. The state has a duty to its citizens to protect their health and life. When a crime is committed, it is committed against the state. In the event of an unnatural death, it is the duty of the state to find out the cause of death and take appropriate measures. This is the purpose of the Inquest protocol, to find out the circumstances on the basis of which it is possible to catch and punish the criminal.

Fundamentals of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Part II

 

Fundamentals of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Part II

Police as functionary (sec 36)

There is no provision in the code that creates the police or police officers. It assumes the existence of police and arms them with various responsibilities and powers.

Organisation 

The police force is established under the Police Act of 1861. The police force is a tool for detecting crime and preventing it, according to the Act. The overall management of police in a state is the responsibility of the Director-General of Police, but in a district, DSP is in charge of such management under the general supervision and guidance of the District Magistrate (District Superintendent of Police).

Every police officer receives a certificate, and as a result, he has all of the rights, obligations, and duties of a police officer. After the person is no longer a police officer, the certificate will no longer be valid.

The Code grants various rights to police officers, including the ability to conduct investigations, conduct searches and seizures, make arrests, and look into the members who have applied to become police officers. The person in command of a police station is given a lot of authority.

 

Public prosecutor (section 24 to 25 A)

A public prosecutor is seen as the state's representative of the general public's interests in the criminal justice system. It is the state's responsibility to prosecute the accused; it is not the responsibility of the party who was wronged personally. In nearly all nations, they are appointed. Section 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code defines the Public Prosecutor. They act as the cornerstone of the Rule of Law, or auld alteram partem (no person shall be condemned unheard).

Public prosecutor is defined under Section 2(u) of the Code of Criminal Process. "A person who is appointed pursuant to Section 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as well as any individual operating in accordance with the Public Prosecutor's instructions.

 

Functions

Depending on their title, the Public Prosecutor performs different duties.

 

·         At Session Court and High Court, the Public Prosecutor is responsible for supervising the Additional Public Prosecutor's duties.

·         Chief Prosecutor: At Metropolitan Magistrate Court, supervise the activities of the Assistant Public Prosecutor.

·         Conduct criminal trials in the Session Court as a second prosecutor.

·         The assistant public prosecutor looks over the agencies' charge sheet before submitting the acquittal or discharge. They are also in charge of reviewing the evidence and submitting revision applications. Also, they manage the criminal cases at the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate.

·         Director of Prosecution is where it all starts. They oversee and control Directorate officials on a broad scale. The Account Branches are also under their care.

The establishment of a Directorate of Public Prosecutors is intended to oversee and closely examine the activities of various prosecuting authorities at the Assistant Session and Session levels, with the exception of the High Court.

 

Reasons for the Appointment of Public Prosecutor:

Whenever any crime is committed against a group or individual, it is assumed that it has been committed against society. It is the duty of the state to provide justice to any group of society or person who is affected by the crime. In India, it is necessary that the criminal justice system should function within the limits of the Indian Constitution, which means that it is necessary for the Public Prosecutor to act in accordance with the principles of:

 

·         Equality before law

·         Protection against double jeopardy

·         Protection against self-incrimination

·         Protection against ex-post law

·         Right to life and personal liberty except procedure established by law

·         Presumption of innocence until proven guilty

·         Arrest and detention must be in accordance with the provisions of Cr.P.C.

·         Equal protection of laws

·         Speedy trial

·         Prohibition of discrimination

·         Right of accused to remain silent

·         Defence council as a functionary

 

In most circumstances, the accused is a layperson who is unfamiliar with legal jargon; consequently, under Section 303, the accused has the right to be represented by counsel of his own choosing. A pleader is not a government official since the accused or his family hires the pleader to defend the accused against the claimed accusations. A skilled legal practitioner must present the case on behalf of the accused to ensure a just and fair trial. As a result, Section 304 states that if the accused lacks the financial resources to employ counsel, the court will appoint a pleader at the state's cost.

In most circumstances, the accused is a layperson who is unfamiliar with legal jargon; consequently, under Section 303, the accused has the right to be represented by counsel of his own choosing.

There are several programmes available to help someone accused who cannot afford to engage a lawyer, including the Legal Aid Scheme of the State, the Legal Aid and Service Board, the Supreme Court Senior Advocates Free Legal Aid Society, and the Bar Association. The Legal Services Authority Act of 1987 provides free legal help to those in need.