Prosecutor’s Authority to Initiate and Pursue Criminal Proceedings
The defendant’s counsel, the defendant’s attorney, stated a request to submit evidentiary matters pertaining to the defendant’s witnesses to the Ratchaburi Provincial Court. The attorney further proposed to pursue this matter if the court did not, stating that it was not a matter of lacking interest in pursuing the witness.
The Prosecutor in charge of this case stated: 1. The Prosecutor of the Plaintiff will follow up on the evidentiary matters if not, requesting the assistance of the Provincial Prosecutor. 2. The Ratchaburi Provincial Court granted permission to send the evidentiary matters to investigate the defendant’s witnesses at the Ratchaburi Provincial Court.
The defendant’s attorney appeared before the court, but the Provincial Prosecutor of Ratchaburi and Mr. Prosecutor of Lopburi did not attend the court. The Ratchaburi Provincial Court then admitted the witnesses for examination. At that time, Mr. Prosecutor of Lopburi followed up on the evidentiary matters in another case at the Ratchaburi Provincial Court, and questioned the defendant’s witness in the aforementioned case.
The defendant’s attorney had no authority to prosecute this case because he was not the original prosecutor and was not a prosecutor from the outset. Mr. Prosecutor of Ratchaburi stated as follows: “Can the defendant’s counsel’s statement be received? And why?”
Regarding the criminal case, the court sent evidentiary matters to another court for investigation.
Answer: The prosecutor with the authority to prosecute this case in the court is the prosecutor who is the presiding prosecutor (the court receiving the evidentiary matters) or the prosecutor who has been prosecuting the case from the outset or the prosecutor who has been prosecuting the case from the outset, pursuant to the 1948 Public Prosecutors Act, Section is the Provincial Prosecutor of Lopburi, therefore has the authority to prosecute this case in the Ratchaburi Provincial Court. The prosecutor in charge of the case did not relinquish the authority to prosecute the case of Mr. .
Mr. ‘s statement is not receivable.