Sh Akhand Pratap Singh

## Policy Analysis Report: Appointment of Special Public Prosecutor in FIR No. 5182024 **1. Executive Summary:** This report analyzes a Government of India notification (N.C. T. D. No. 24) dated April 21, 2025, regarding the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) for FIR No. 5182024, P.S. S.P. Badli, New Delhi, under Section 34 of the MCOC Act. The notification outlines the specific fee structure for the appointed SPP, Sh. Akhand Pratap Singh, Advocate, who will represent the state before the Trial Court and the High Court of Delhi. The key finding is the transparency provided on cost for the office. **2. Introduction:** The purpose of this report is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the Government of India notification (N.C. T. D. No. 24) concerning the appointment and fee structure of a Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) for a specific case. This analysis is based solely on the information provided within the document. **3. Policy Overview:** * This appears to be a new policy decision or order specific to this case rather than an amendment to a pre-existing general policy. * **Core Objective(s):** The core objective is to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor, Sh. Akhand Pratap Singh, Advocate, to represent the state in FIR No. 5182024 and to define their fee structure. This ensures the state has legal representation in the specified case and outlines the financial terms of that representation. **4. Background and Rationale:** * **Likely Problem/Issue Addressed:** The notification suggests a need for specialized legal representation due to the nature of the case (FIR No. 5182024 under Section 34 of the MCOC Act). The appointment of an SPP indicates that the government deems the case significant enough to warrant dedicated legal expertise. The case relates to organised crime, hence necessitating specialist expertise. **5. Key Provisions:** * Appointment of Sh. Akhand Pratap Singh, Advocate, as Special Public Prosecutor. * Scope of representation: Before the Ld. Trial Court as well as Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. * Case specifics: FIR No. 5182024 us 34 MCOC Act, P.S. S.P.Badli, New Delhi. * Fee structure: * Appearance fee: Rs. 40,000 (effective) * Conference/consultation fee: Rs. 15,000 * Drafting Petition fee: Rs. 15,000 * Clerkage: 10% of total bill amount * The notification requires approval from the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor, GNCT of Delhi. **6. Target Audience and Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders directly affected by this notification are: * **Sh. Akhand Pratap Singh, Advocate:** The appointed Special Public Prosecutor. * **Delhi Police:** As they proposed the fee structure and are involved in the case. * **The Ld. Trial Court and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi:** Where the SPP will be representing the state. * **Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCT of Delhi):** The government body responsible for the appointment and payment of the SPP. **7. Implementation Aspects (Inferred):** * **Responsible agency/bodies:** * Delhi Police (initial proposal). * Home Department (issuance of the notification). * Lieutenant Governor of Delhi (approval authority). * **Timelines or procedures:** The notification is effective from April 21, 2025 (date of issuance). The payment procedures are subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi. The actual timelines for payment are not specified in the document but would follow standard government financial protocols. **8. Expected Outcomes / Impact:** The likely intended outcomes of this policy decision are: * Effective legal representation for the state in the specified case (FIR No. 5182024). * Fair and just proceedings in the Trial Court and the High Court. * Appropriate compensation for the appointed Special Public Prosecutor according to the defined fee structure. **9. Conclusion:** The Government of India notification regarding the appointment and fee structure of a Special Public Prosecutor for FIR No. 5182024 ensures dedicated legal representation for the state in a significant case under the MCOC Act. The notification clarifies the financial terms of the appointment and reflects the government's commitment to providing adequate legal resources for handling such cases. This is more an administrative order than a policy, but the transparency in cost is good practice for similar cases.

Key Entities Referenced