This revision is directed against the order dated 7. 4. 81 passed by the learned Additi nal Sessions Judge, West Tripura. 2. The petitioner had lodged the FI R. on the basis of which after investigation the Police had submitted charge sheet against the accused (the present opposite parties 1 to 7) under sections 326/302 etc. of IPC. The accused opposite parties were committed to the Court of Session to stand trial. On 7. 4. 81 when the matter was taken up by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the Public Prosecutor was not available. The learned Additional Sessions Judge however took up the matter for consideration of charge and directed framing of charge under section 326 IPC against accused Ganesh Chandra Deb and Kartik Chandra Deb and did not find any .sufficient ground to proceed against the other accused persons who were accordingly discharged and since offence under section 326 IPC was not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, it was sent to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate for trial. 3. Aggieved, the informant has come to this Court and Sfari A. Chakravarty, learned counsel appearing on his behalf has submitted that the charge sheet against the accused was also under section 302 IPC, the accused opposite parties had been committed to stand trial, that without the Public Prosecutor having been heard, the procedure followed was not correct and hence the order dated 7. 4. 81 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was unsustainable. 4. Sari B. Das, learned counsel for the accused opposite parties has not opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and has left the matter to Court. 5. The accused opposite parties had been committed to Court of Session to stand trial under section 302 etc. IPC. 6. Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for "Trial Before A Court of Session section 225 provides- "In every trial before a Court of Session the prosecution shall be conducted by a Public Prosecutor." Section 226 provides "When the accused appears or is brought, before the Court in pursuance of a commitment of the case under section 209 the Prosecutor shall open his case by describing the charge brought against the accused and stating by what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused. Section 227 provides "If upon consideration of the record of the case and the document submitted therewith and after hearing the , submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing." The above provisions are clear that Public Prosecutors' parti­cipation, to conduct prosecution, to open the case for prosecution, to describe the charge, to state by what evidence it was proposed to substantiate the charge, and to make submissions for the prosecution, was necessary, before the stage for exercise of power under section 227 by the learned Sessions Judge could be reached. The Public Prosecutor has been assigned a very important role and has to perform important functions in a trial, for obvious reasons of proper presentation and conduct of prosecution. Where therefore as in the instant case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge proceeded with the trial in the absence of Public Prosecutor and obviously therefore, without having heard him passed the order, the procedure followed being is contravention of that laid down by law, was illegal or in any case highly irregular so as to amount to being illegal. The order just indicates that the Public Prosecutor was not available, it was 12'O clock and further that since the Public Prosecutor was absent, there was no chance of the prosecution being heard. 7. As the learned Judge himself observed the prosecution was not heard. It is not clear how, and for what reason, it so happened that the Public Prosecutor was not available but then the fact remains that the prosecution in a 'Session trial' was not heard at all. 8. Besides the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not even referred to charge under section 302 IPC in the impugned order. There is nothing in the impugned order except general observation to show that the material in support of the said charge had been considered to take the view that there was no sufficient ground to proceed under section 302 IPC against the accused opposite parties. 9. The impugned order not being in conformity with the require­ments of law, has to be set aside. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 7. 4. 81 is set aside. 9. The impugned order not being in conformity with the require­ments of law, has to be set aside. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 7. 4. 81 is set aside. The trial shall be resumed afresh by the learned Sessions Judge or any learned Additional Sessions Judge for early decision in accordance with law.