P THINAGARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the inherent powers of this Court under Sec.482, Cr.P.C. the petitioner, who has filed a private complaint against respondents 2 to 4 for offences under Sec.307, 323, 423 and 447 read with Sec.35, I.P.C., which after committal is pending trial as S.C.No.69 of 1988 before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai, seeks quashing of the order passed by the trial Court dismissing Crl.M.P.No.30 of 1989 filed by him under Sec.301(2), Cr.P.C. and refusing to grant permission to his private counsel to conduct the prosecution during trial.

(2.) THIRU T.J. Anandavelu, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that circumstances have necessitated having a private counsel to conduct the prosecution in the Sessions, since prior to this complaint in Court, out of which the present sessions case arises, the petitioner had given another complaint about the occurrence to the first respondent- police, and the latter without proper investigation had wantonly referred the complaint, compelling the petitioner to file the private complaint in court and under these circumstances the petitioner cannot expect the Public Prosecutor of the Court to conduct the prosecution before the Assistant Sessions Court in a fair and effective manner and a well-briefed private counsel alone would be able to do justice to the prosecution case. According to the learned counsel, the Public Prosecutor is bound to be biased and prejudiced against the petitioner, since the police had wrongly referred the case. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Punjab High Court in Roop K. Shorey v. The State A.I.R. 1967 Punjab 42

(3.) SEC.225 indicating the person competent to conduct the prosecution is a court of Sessions, is as follows: