Order.- 1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Anantapur, in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 33 of 1980 in Sessions Case No. 73 of 1979 on the file of his Court. The petitioners are the ten accused in the Sessions Case. 2. The material facts leading to this revision petition are as follows: Sessions Case No. 73 of 1979 and Calendar Case No. 1 of 1980 are case and counter. The Calendar case triable by a Magistrate was committed to the Court of Session on the ground that both the cases should be tried by the same Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge took up C.C. No 1 of 1980 in the first instance. The Additional Public Prosecutor attached to the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge examined three witnesses on behalf of the State and the ease was adjourned. Later on the Sessions Care No. 73 of 1979 was taken up for trial and the same Additional Public Prosecutor appeared to conduct the prosecution being in charge of the case arising in the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge. The petitioners herein, who are the accused in the Sessions Case, filed the application Crl M. P. No. 33 of 1980, requesting the Court to appoint a special Public Prosecutor contending that the Additional Public Prosecutor had already appeared in support of their version in C.C. No. 1 of 1980. The learned additional Assistant Sessions Judge dismissed the application on the ground that the Additional Public Prosecutor is entitled to conduct the prosecution in every case that comes up for trial before that Court. The accused persons have thereupon come up in revision to this Court contending that the order of dismissal passed by the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge is illegal and Improper. 3. The short question that falls for consideration in this revision is whether it is objectionable for the same Public Prosecutor to conduct the prosecutions in “counter cases”. 4. Sri T.Bali Reddy, the petitioner's learned Counsel, fairly states that there is no provision in the Code expressly prohibiting the Public Prosecutor to conduct the prosecutions ‘ in counter cases, and however submits that such a course would be highly improper and such impropriety should not be permitted by a Court. 5. 4. Sri T.Bali Reddy, the petitioner's learned Counsel, fairly states that there is no provision in the Code expressly prohibiting the Public Prosecutor to conduct the prosecutions ‘ in counter cases, and however submits that such a course would be highly improper and such impropriety should not be permitted by a Court. 5. Section 225 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (old section 270), expressly provides’ that “in every trial before a Court of Session the prosecution shall be conducted by a Public Prosecutor. There is no such provision in regard to the conduct of prosecutions in other cases. Though every sessions trial arises out of a report to the Police or other competent authority or information given by a party on which a Magistrate might take cognizance even suo mottt or on the complaint of an aggrieved person, an offence tried by the Sessions Court is serious and involves the interests of the society and not merely the individual, who complains against or is aggrieved with the offence. Under section 24 of the Code, a Public Prosecutor is appointed by the State Government after consultation with the High Court or the Sessions Judge, at the case may be. He is an officer appointed by the State and not engaged by the private party. He holds a highly honourable and responsible office, the duties of which are to be discharged not as a representative of the complainant interested in the prosecution, but as the representative of the State, which is interested not only in the complainant, but in all member of the society including even the accused in the case. Section 321, Criminal Procedure Code, empowers Public Prosecutor even to withdraw from the prosecution, no doubt, with the consent of the Court. In Balwant Singh and others v. State of Bihar1 while considering the powers and responsibilities of a Public Prosecutor for withdrawal, from prosecution, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed: “The Criminal Procedure. Code is the only master of the Public Prosecutor and he has to guide himself with reference to Criminal Procedure Code only. In Balwant Singh and others v. State of Bihar1 while considering the powers and responsibilities of a Public Prosecutor for withdrawal, from prosecution, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed: “The Criminal Procedure. Code is the only master of the Public Prosecutor and he has to guide himself with reference to Criminal Procedure Code only. So guided, the consideration which most weigh with him is, whether the broader cause of public justice will be advanced or retarded by the withdrawal or continuance of the prosecution.” A Public Prosecutor is not expected to conduct the prosecution in every sessions trial as a machine or a subordinate officer obeying the command of any higher authority. He has to conduct the prosecution only on being satisfied that the case is worthy of prosecution, though it is not for him to be the final Judge of the gailt or otherwise of the accused persons. The final responsibility is always with that of the Court; but it is not expected of a Public Prosecutor to conduct the prosecution in a case where he does not believe the prosecution to be true. It would be proper for him to withdraw from the prosecution with the consent of the Court or to request the Government to appoint another Public Prosecutor who might be satisfied with the truth of the prosecution case. When two counter cases are to be tried by the same Sessions Court and if the facts of the case are such that, if one case is true, the other must be false, it would not be fair or proper for the same Public Prosecutor to conduct both the cases as, while conducting the cases, he cannot reasonably be satisfied with the truth of both the prosecutions. He must choose to conduct the prosecution in the case with the truth of which he is reasonably satisfied and seek the consent of the Court for his withdrawal from the prosecution in the other case; if it becomes necessary that the prosecution in the other case alio should be proceeded with, he should make necessary arrangements for the conduct of the prosecution and should not himself conduct the case with the strth of which he himself is not satisfied. 6. 6. In Ramakrishna v. State,1 it was pointed out that the position of the public prosecutor in conducting the prosecution in both such counter eases would bring his own honourable office into disrepute. Ramaswami, J., observed.- “The public prosecutor will be required to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds, to appear alternatively in the same proceedings for the prosecution and for the defence and to be in the Counsel of both, to ride two horses at once in a scandalous competition.” In the instant case, by conducting the prosecution in C.C. No. 1 of 1980 where one of the accused in Sessions Case No. 73 of 1979 is the defects complainant and some of the accused are witnesses the Public Prosecutor is informing the Court that the version of the prosecution in that case is true. If the version of the Prosecution in C.C. No. 1 of 1980 is true, the version of the prosecution in Sessions Case No. 73 of 1979 cannot be true. It would not be proper for the same Public Prosecutor to conduct the prosecution in Sessions Cue No. 73 of 1979, as such conduct would tantamount to telling the court that the version of the prosecution in C.C. No. 1 of 1980 which is the plea of the accused in Sessions Case No. 73 of 1979. is not true. Such conduct of the Public Prosecutor would be blowing hot and cold in the same breath and the same cannot be commended. There is sufficient substance in the objection of the petitioners against the conduct of the prosecution by the same Public Prosecutor, who had already conducted the prosecution in C. C. No. 1 of 1980. 7. The order of the lower Court to the extent it over rules the objection of the petitioners does not commend itself to me as correct or sound. The prayer of the petitioners for appointing another Public Prosecutor to conduct the prosecution in Sessions Case No. 73 of 1979 cannot however be granted. It is not open to the Assistant Sessions Judge or this Court to straightway appoint a Special Public Prosecutor for any case, the prosecution of which, the Court feels, should not be conducted by the Public Prosecutor attached to the particular Court. It is not open to the Assistant Sessions Judge or this Court to straightway appoint a Special Public Prosecutor for any case, the prosecution of which, the Court feels, should not be conducted by the Public Prosecutor attached to the particular Court. The Special Public Prosecutor for a particular case can be appointed only by the Government and, in the instant case it is for the Additional Public Prosecutor attached to the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge to inform the Government about the undesirability of his conducting the prosecution in Sessions Case No. 73 of 1979 or for the accused-petitioners to represent the facts to the Government, so that the Government appoints Special Public Prosecutor. In this view of the matter, the revision petition filed by the petitioners for setting aside the order of the lower Court has to be and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.