KANHU CHARAN PRUSTY Vs. SARAT KUMAR MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant in Case No. I. C. C. 8 of 1966 on the file of the Sub -divisional Magistrate, Bolangir is the petitioner. The opposite party No. 1 is a Sub -Inspector of Police. After the evidence in the said case was taken, by the order dated 30 -9 -69 the learned S. D. M. committed the opposite party No. 1 to stand his trial in the Court of Sessions for offence punishable under Sections 218, 403, 504 and 323 I.P.C. On the basis of the said commitment proceeding Sessions Case No. 6/B of 1969 was registered. The learned Sessions Judge transferred the said case to the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge of Bolangir by his order dated 27 -10 -69. This case was re -registered as Sessions Case No. 11/6/B of 1969. On 5 -1 -70 the accused appeared. The Assistant Public Prosecutor appeared for the State and the Public Prosecutor for the accused. The case continued thereafter and the prosecution was being represented by the Assistant Public Prosecutor and the accused by the Public Prosecutor. On 9 -4 -70, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge was required to deal with two petitions filed by the original complainant who is the petitioner here - one asking for a direction that the accused should not be permitted to use the police dress while appearing in court and the other for debarring Shri S.S. Misra, the Public Prosecutor from defending the accused in the case. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge's order of 9 -4 -70 reads as follows :

(2.) THE learned Trial Judge has negatived these contentions and has dismissed both the applications by his order dated 17 -4 -70. This revision application is directed against that order.

(3.) THE question for examination in this case however, is as to whether in the face of the statutory requirement under Section 270 Criminal Procedure Code the State Government could direct the engagement of the Public Prosecutor to appear for the defence, forsaking the interest of the prosecution. It is too well known that in sessions cases which are initiated by private complainants the complainants lose position when the cases are committed and come up for trial before the court of Session. Under the statutory provision embodied in the Code of Criminal Procedure the complainant's status is gone and the State takes over the prosecution. The reason is obvious. Cases which are committed for trial to the court of Session are of a graver nature and normally are in respect of offences against society. On that principle the responsibility of a fair trial of such cases is statutorily placed on the State. Section 270 Criminal Procedure Code is a provision to implement that responsibility cast on the State.