IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No. 2580 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision : July 30, 2009
Lachho alias Lichhi ....Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Present : Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana for respondent no. 1
Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate, for respondent nos. 2 to 4
Mr. Manoj Makkar, Advocate for
Mr. RVS Chugh, Advocate, for respondent no. 5
None for respondent no. 6
L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)
Criminal Misc. No. 56088 of 2008
For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 5 days in
filing the revision petition is condoned.
Criminal Revision No. 2580 of 2008
Lachho alias Lichhi has filed this revision petition assailing
order dated 19.8.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar.
Manbhari filed criminal complaint against respondent nos. 2 to
6 for offences under sections 302 and 120-B IPC. The case stands
committed to Sessions Court. Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are facing trial
before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. However, Manbhari
complainant has since died on 10.8.2007. Petitioner Lachho alias Lichhi is
daughter of complainant and is sister of the deceased. Petitioner moved
Criminal Revision No. 2580 of 2008 (O&M) -2-
application in the trial court seeking permission to prosecute the case. The
application was opposed by the accused on the ground that the trial before
the Sessions Court has to be conducted by Public Prosecutor as mandated by
section 225 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C.). This
contention has found favour with learned Additional Sessions Judge who
has accordingly dismissed the application of the petitioner observing that
the petitioner is only a witness in the case whereas the Public Prosecutor is
already being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case file.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that
the counsel for the complainant who was assisting the Public Prosecutor in
the trial has ceased to have authority to appear for the complainant in view
of death of the complainant and therefore, petitioner wants to engage
counsel who can assist the Public Prosecutor in the trial in terms of section
301 Cr.P.C. There is considerable merit in the contention. The observation
of learned Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned order that the Public
Prosecutor is being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant cannot
be accepted because the complainant has since died and the counsel
engaged by her, therefore, no longer has authority to appear for the
complainant. In these circumstances, the petitioner being daughter of the
complainant and also being sister of the deceased is entitled to assist the
Public Prosecutor in terms of section 301 Cr.P.C. The said section is
Criminal Revision No. 2580 of 2008 (O&M) -3-
reproduced herein :-
” 301. Appearance by Public Prosecutors.- (1) The Public
Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case
may appear and plead without any written authority before any
Court in which that case is under inquiry, trial or appeal.
(2) If any such case any private person instructs a pleader to
prosecute any person in any Court, the Public Prosecutor or
Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case shall conduct
the prosecution, and the pleader so instructed shall act therein
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. “
In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner has a right to engage
counsel and to instruct the said counsel in terms of the aforesaid provision.
In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision is allowed. The
impugned order dated 19.8.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Hisar is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to engage counsel
for assisting the Public Prosecutor in the trial of respondent Nos. 2 to 6 in
terms of section 301 Cr.P.C. The petitioner shall be substituted as
complainant for Manbhari.
( L.N. Mittal )
July 30, 2009 Judge
'dalbir'