Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 548 (JHR)

Birendra Kumar v. State Of Jharkhand

2001-08-07

D.N.PRASAD, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2001
ORDER D.N. Prasad, J. 1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directed against the order, dated 9.7.2001 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in ST No. 578 of 1995, whereby and whereunder, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the petition dated 9.5.2001, whereby and whereunder the learned Court below passed an order that the private lawyer engaged in this case by the informant/petitioner will not argue the case on behalf of the petitioner. 2. On the other hand, a counter-affidavit has also been filed stating therein that the Court below has given specific direction as per Section 301(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for filing the written statements with permission of the Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned Court below committed error in allowing the petition of the opposite- parties as the private counsel appearing on behalf of the inform-ant/petitioner was to argue the case and he also relied upon the case reported in, 2001 PLJR page 570 (SC). It is also submitted that a private party, who is aggrieved by the offence involved in the cases cannot be debarred from participation in the trial and as such the order impugned is fit to be set-aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite-parties contended before me that a counsel for the petitioner/informant has already been given opportunity to file written statements after permission of the Court as per Section 301(2) of the Cr PC. It is also submitted that the petitioner/informant is delaying the matter purposely in disposal of the case as there-was a specific direction by this Court passed in CWJC No. 36 of 2001 for hearing the matter day-to-day but in order to delay the disposal of the case, the petitioner is in habit of filing such petition. 5. It would be appropriate to refer Section 225 of the Cr PC which reads as follows : "Trial to be conducted by Public Prosecutor.--In every trial before a Court of Sessions, the prosecution shall be con ducted by a Public Prosecutor. 5. It would be appropriate to refer Section 225 of the Cr PC which reads as follows : "Trial to be conducted by Public Prosecutor.--In every trial before a Court of Sessions, the prosecution shall be con ducted by a Public Prosecutor. Sections 301(1) and (2) of the Cr PC also deals about appearance by Public Prosecutor which reads as follows : "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 and appeal. (2) If, in 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 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. 6. Obviously there was a specific order of this Court passed in CWJC No. 36 of 2001 to conclude the case even by continuing hearing of the argument on day- to-day basis but the case has not yet been concluded. From going through the order impugned, it appears, that the trial Court considered all aspect of the matter and he has rightly passed the order impugned. 7. In the case of Shiv Kumar v. Hukam Chand and Anr., reported in 1999 (3) East Cr C 328 (SC). The apex Court held that the prosecution in a Sessions Court cannot be conducted by anyone except the Public Prosecutor and private counsel can only submit written argument after closure of evidence that too with permission of the Court. 8. In the case of J.K. International v. State Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors., reported in 2001 (1) JLJR page 570 (SC), it has been reiterated that the provisions as laid down under Section 301(2) of the Cr PC falls within the Chapter titled "General Provisions is to Inquiries and Trials". 8. In the case of J.K. International v. State Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors., reported in 2001 (1) JLJR page 570 (SC), it has been reiterated that the provisions as laid down under Section 301(2) of the Cr PC falls within the Chapter titled "General Provisions is to Inquiries and Trials". When such a role is permitted to be played by a private person, though it is a limited role, even in the Sessions Courts that is enough to show that the private person, if he is aggrieved, is not wiped- off from the proceeding in the criminal Court merely because the case was charge-sheeted by the police. It has to be stated further that the Court is given power to permit even such private person to submit his written arguments in the Court including the Sessions Court. If, he submits any such written arguments, the Court has a duty to consider such arguments before taking a decision. 9. Thus, it is clear that the counsel appearing on behalf of the informant/petitioner, is permitted to file written argument, which shall be considered at the time of final decision of the case. 10. In the above facts and circumstances, the order impugned does not required to be interfered. However, the trial Court should proceed with the case in accordance with Section 301(2) of the Cr PC which is clear and obvious. Both parties are directed to get the case disposed of without further delay. With the above observation, this application is disposed of. 11. Application disposed of.