Abstract



The prosecutor's reaction, as the representative of society, to criminal phenomena must be swift, inevitable, and decisive, and pursuit of offenders must continue uninterrupted through all stages of litigation up to execution of sentence. However, when offender, by accepting verdict of court of first instance and submitting to determined punishment before the finality of judgment in the form of surrendering to verdict takes action; the prosecutor's pursuit must, due to disproportionality of punishment and under subject of clause (p) of Article 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, be based on the principle of discretionary prosecution. The public prosecutor has faced various challenges in dealing with the ambiguous and vague phrasing of Article 442 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was formulated by adapting from Article 6 of the 1977 Law on Amending Certain Laws of the Judiciary. The main challenges facing prosecutor are: whether filing an appeal is a right or an obligation; status, presence, and role of the prosecutor in hearing session for applying mitigation of this lenient institution; the possibility of unilateral withdrawal or waiver of the appeal request; and the consensual nature of surrendering to the verdict with convicted person or their defense attorney. This research is of an applied type and has been compiled using an analytical-descriptive method. In this paper, first, by analyzing different viewpoints, practical guidelines for current situation are presented, and subsequently, necessary suggestions for amending law and adopting appropriate measures by judicial authorities are proposed.