B JANAKIRAMAIAH CHETTY Vs. A K PARTHASARATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the defacto-complainant, who is aggrieved against the orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.8 of 2002 in S.C.No.334 of 1999 dated 23-1-2002 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge at Putturu dismissing the application purported to have been filed under Section 301(2) Crl.P.C seeking permission to conduct the prosecution in the main sessions case by his advocate under the directions of the Public Prosecutor.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that on the complaint filed by the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 325, 331 and 120-B IPC., the committal court took the case as P.R.C.No.17 of 1989 and committed the same to the Sessions Court as S.C.No.334 of 1999. According to the petitioner, there are several other cases, including a civil suit in O.S.No.117 of 1992 between the parties, wherein Sri S.R.Thyagarjan and Sri S.Satyanarayana, his advocates, are attending and therefore, those advocates are more acquainted with the facts and, therefore, he has instructed them to prosecute the criminal case also. Hence the petition for permission to prosecute the case by his counsel under the directions of the Public Prosecutor.

(3.) Opposing the application, the accused contended that no private lawyer including the advocates of the petitioner are entitled to conduct prosecution in view of Section 225 and Section 301 (2) Crl.P.C. The case has to be conducted only by the public prosecutor. At the most, the private lawyer can assist and file written arguments with the permission of the court. Therefore, the application is not maintainable.