JUDGMENT The applicants-accused have challenged the order dated 8.1.1991 (Annexure-C), passed by the Fourth Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in Sessions Trial No.62 of 1988. The short facts, leading to this revision-petition are that, the present applicants-accused are being tried for offences under sections 302, 307,147,148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, before the Fourth Add1. Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in Sessions Trial No.62 of 1983, in which Shri Dharmendra Verma, Advocate, has been appointed as a Special Prosecutor. The applicants filed an application on 7.1.91, to the effect that the said Shri Dharmendra Verma is a witness of the prosecution case and that, in the statement recorded by the police of one of the prosecution witnesses, viz., Iftekhar Azam (Annexure-B), the name of Shri Oharmendra Verma is appearing, as being present at the time of the incident, and, so, some other Prosecutor may be appointed for conducting the said Sessions Trial, but the learned Fourth Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhopal, rejected the said application vide order 8.1.1991, which is the impugne4 order in this revision petition. On behalf of the applicants, it has mainly been submitted that the learned trial Judge should have seen that, if Shri Dharmendra Verma, Advocate, had witnessed the incident, in that case, he could not have been appointed as a Special Prosecutor in the Sessions Trial, because, he could use his personal knowledge of the incident while conducting the prosecution case. It was, therefore, submitted that the prosecution should be directed to appoint some other prosecutor to conduct the Session Trial, on behalf of the Prosecution, in place of Shri Dharmendra Verma, Advocate. After a careful perusal of Annexure-A and B, filed along-with the revision petition, it cannot be said that the said Shri Dharmendra Verma, Advocate, who had been appointed as a Special Prosecutor in the Sessions Trial was present in the Maidan of Bhopal court, at the time of the incident. There is, therefore, no illegality committed by the learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in passing the impugned order dated 8.1.1991 -- rejecting thereby the application dated 7.1.1991, which had been moved on behalf of the applicants-accused. The· impugned order is neither illegal nor perverse in any way -- so as to justify any interference in this revision-petition. The revision petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is, accordingly dismissed. The stay order passed by this Court on 11.3.1991 shall stand vacated. The· impugned order is neither illegal nor perverse in any way -- so as to justify any interference in this revision-petition. The revision petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is, accordingly dismissed. The stay order passed by this Court on 11.3.1991 shall stand vacated. Before parting with the case, it may be mentioned that, if so advised, the prosecution case in Sessions Trial No.62 of 1988, may be conducted by some other prosecutor, in place of Shri Dharmendra Verma, Advocate, in his own interest, as his name has been mentioned in Annexure-A and B -- which have been filed along-with this revision-petition.