SK. LUTFAR RAHAMAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against an order dated May 6, 1986 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Court, Midnapore in Sessions Trial No. III of 1984 under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the said order by which the learned Judge permuted the Advocate for the brother of the deceased to address oral arguments to the court and allowed the prayer of the said Advocate directing summoning of 3 more witnesses to be examined as court witnesses under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this revision petition has been tiled and it is submitted that under section 301(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, any Advocate appealing for a private party may assist the Public Prosecutor in prosecuting the case but has no authority to address the court orally and arguments has got to be advanced not by such an Advocate, but by the Public Prosecutor only and the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, directing the Advocate appearing for the brother of the deceased is an clearly illegal order. It is also submitted mat mere was no justification tor the learned Additional Sessions Judge to invoke the provisions of section 311 of the Code Criminal Procedure and there was no just cause for the learned Judge to summon 3 witnesses after the close of the prosecution case when me Public Prosecutor did not wish to examine them as witnesses even though their names disclosed in the cross-examination of the P.W. 2 more than a month ago and after the learned Additional Sessions Judge permitted the Advocate of the private party to address the court, such an application was moved with some ulterior motive ami this is nothing but fishing out evidence and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not at all justified in permitting summoning of those 3 witnesses under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) The revision petition is contested both by the State as well as by the brother of the deceased through his learned Advocate. As regards the first point, I am of the view that section 301(2) of the Code gives the permission to a private person to appoint a pleader and such pleader has to act under the directions of the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor and may with the permission of the Court, submit written arguments after the evidence is closed in the case.