PRAKASH GUPTA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been brought against the order dated 20.01.2020, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No.179 of 2019, in which, the application filed by the victim for taking documents in the prosecution case has been allowed.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the complainant in any case or the counsel engaged by him have no entitlement to conduct prosecution in session trial under Section 225 of the Cr.P.C. It is the public prosecutor, who shall open the case and Section 301 Sub-section (1) of Cr.P.C. also provides for the same. It is only in Sub-section (2) of Section 301 of Cr.P.C., the pleader engaged by a private person can assist the public prosecutor and he shall act only under the directions of the public prosecutor and may, if the Court permits, submit written arguments after the evidence is closed in the case. It is further submitted that this provision no where provides that a counsel engaged by private person is also competent to file documents in support of the prosecution case, which were earlier not filed along with the charge-sheet. Therefore, there is no permission under the Code to supplement the prosecution case by filing an additional documents. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Shiv Kumar Vs. Hukam Chand & Another,1997 7 SCC 468 and the judgment in case of Rekha Murarka Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr., 2020 1 SCC(Cri) 496 , it is submitted that the learned trial Court has committed grave error in allowing the application for production of documents. Therefore, this revision petition be allowed and the impugned order be interfered with.

(3.) State counsel opposes the petition and the submission made in this respect. It is submitted that no error has been committed by the learned Court below.