ORDER P.L. Narasimha Sarma relies upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Ramakistiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, A.I.R. 1959 A.P. 659 and wherein it is held that the mere fact that a pleader, privately instructed, has acted for the prosecution in a Sessions case does not involve the violation of section 270, Criminal Procedure Code, if the conduct of the prosecution could be said to have been in the hands of the Public Prosecutor but in the circumstances of the case, the memo, filed by the Additional Public, Prosecutor iteslf shows that the advocate who was sought to be inducted to conduct the prosecution was closely connected with the prosecution witness and working in the matter connected thereto. Thus, it shows that the public Prosecutor is leaving the entire matter in the hands of the private pleader on the sole ground that the private pleader is well connected with the prosecution. This is what exactly is discouraged. The learned Counsel further relies upon a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Roop K. Shoney v. State, A.I.R. 1967 Punj. 8 Har. 42 wherein it was observed that the Court has no concern with the matter of engagement of a pleader by a private party and conduct of trial by such pleader under the direction of Public Prosecutor. Even in this decision. It is not held that Public prosecutor can entirely divest himself. 2. Thus, the revision is dismissed. R.S. ----- Revision petition dismissed.