HUKAM CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order by which the Addl. Session Judge, Kaithal has passed the order by which one R. C. Gugnani, Advocate appearing for the complainant was allowed to conduct the case under the supervision, guidance and control of the Public Prosecutor while the Public Prosecutor retaining control over the proceedings. The brief question would be whether such an order is in accordance with the provision of Sections 301 and 302 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the point involved in this case, it would be necessary to bear in mind that the appointment of a public prosecutor is made as per Section 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It provides that the State may appoint Public Prosecutor and one or more Additional Public Prosecutors for conducting the cases in the Court. In the context of point raised in this case, it is pertinent to note that clause 8 of Section 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers the Government to appoint a practicing lawyer having not less than 10 years practice, as a special public prosecutor for the purpose of conducting a case or class of cases. This provision clearly indicates that in a given case in which it has become necessary to appoint a practising lawyer to conduct the case, the State has the authority to do so.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent has brought my attention to a case reported as Medichetty Ramakistiah and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1959 Andhra Pradesh 659. In that case, their Lordships were interpreting the term 'act' used in Section 493 of the old Criminal Procedure Code. In that case, their Lordships took into consideration the provisions of Sections 27 and 492 of the old Criminal Procedure Code. In para 10 of the Judgment, their Lordships have observed that pleader thus appointed by a private person may act in the case subject to over-all supervision of the public prosecutor, and conduct examination, cross-examination and re-examination of the witnesses, and also address arguments to the Court. That was a ruling under the old Code. It may be noted in Section 301 of the present Criminal Procedure Code, the pleader so instructed can submit only written arguments, and that too if the Court permits to do so. This provision obviously make it quite clear that conduct of the case should be, nonetheless, in the hands of a Public Prosecutor incharge of the case. My attention was also invited to a case reported as Roop Kishori v. State, AIR 1967 Punjab 42. In that case the old provisions of the Code were under consideration. It as observed therein that the private person can examine the witnesses while acting under the guidance of the public Prosecutor. These rulings now deserves to be considered in the light of the present provisions.