JUDGMENT This Writ petition is instituted seeking a writ of mandamus for expediting the trial in Sessions Case No. 22 of 2011 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Srikakulam by fixing an early date for trial as per law. 2. The petitioner, a retired teacher belonging to Scheduled Caste lodged a complaint bringing out that the accused No.1 highhandedly cultivated the land belonging to him without his consent or prior permission in the year 2006 and when objected to, he admitted his guilt in the presence of village elders and gave a written undertaking that he would not cut the standing crop, but, however, highhandedly cut it and carried away the paddy crop. He was also further cultivating the land belonging to the petitioner. A1 has also got foisted a false case against the petitioner through A3 alleging that the petitioner did not pay the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for purpose of discharging the debt through promissory notes to A3. Entertaining the false complaint of A1. The Sub Inspector of Police – II Town Police Station, Srikakulam, under threat and coercion obtained the Signatures of the petitioner and his son on two promissory notes of Rs.75,000/- each in favour of A-3, inspite of petitioner pleading that A1 never paid any amount to the petitioner for transmission to A3. Taking undue advantage, A2 without any manner of right, title or possession grabbed a portion of the vacant plot belonging to the petitioner and constructed a three storied building thereof and inspite of agreeing before the elders in the village that he would not be proceeding with the construction, but went ahead. Unfortunately, the 1st respondent – Sessions Court has been adjourning the trial on one pretext or the other. 3. When rule nisi was called for by this court on 21.12.2012, the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act-cum-Addl. District & Sessions Judge at Srikakulam, filed a report in the matter pointing out that the complainant represented to the court that permission should be accorded to him to conduct the prosecution by himself, but not by the Public Prosecutor. District & Sessions Judge at Srikakulam, filed a report in the matter pointing out that the complainant represented to the court that permission should be accorded to him to conduct the prosecution by himself, but not by the Public Prosecutor. It is also brought out by the learned Sessions Judge that the complainant is not willing to be represented by the Public Prosecutor. It is further pointed out that the complainant is unnecessarily raising his voice and questioning the power of the Public Prosecutor and that of the court in not allowing the complainant to carry on the proceedings in the case. 4. Though this writ petition was initially instituted by engaging the services of a learned counsel, but, however, the writ petitioner withdrew the authorization given by him to the learned counsel and filed an appearance in the matter on 19.2.2013 with an endorsement which reads “can plead as party-in-person in this writ petition.” 5. I tried to convince the writ petitioner of the efficacy of allowing an Advocate to represent the matter on his behalf and also suggested that the Legal Services Authority would provide the necessary legal assistance to him. But, he would not accept these suggestions. In those set of circumstances, heard the petitioner. 6. The most crucial question to be answered is whether a complainant can carry on the prosecution in a sessions case on his own? 7. Section 225 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, would make it clear that every trial before a Court of Session, the prosecution shall be conducted by a Public Prosecutor. Thereafter, Section 226 of the said Code enjoins the Public Prosecutor to open his case by describing the charge brought against the accused and stating by what evidence he proposes to prove the guilty of the accused. These two sections are obviously referring to the Public Prosecutor appointed in terms of and in accordance with Section 24 of the said Code. 8. Sections 301 and 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read as under: 301. Appearance by Public Prosecution.-(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 or appeal. 8. Sections 301 and 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read as under: 301. Appearance by Public Prosecution.-(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 or 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 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. 302. Permission to conduct prosecution.- (1) Any Magistrate inquiring into or trying a case may permit the prosecution to be conducted by any person other than police officer below the rank of Inspector; but no person, other than the Advocate-General or Government Advocate or a Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor, shall be entitled to do so without such permission. Provided that no police officer shall be permitted to conduct the prosecution it he has taken part in the investigation into the offence with respect to which the accused is being prosecuted. (2) Any person conducting the prosecution may do so personally or by a pleader. 9. Section 301 would enable the public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor incharge of the case to appear and plead without any written authority before any court in which the case is under enquiry, trial or appeal. Sub-section (2) thereof sets out that in any such case any private person who instructs a pleader to prosecute any such person in any court, 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. Similarly, any Magistrate inquiring into or trying a case may permit the prosecution to be conducted by any person other than a police officer below the rank of Inspector. 10. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to examine the respective functions of a Public Prosecutor and the Counsel engaged by a complainant in re Bhupalli Malliah and others, Referred Trial No. 40 of 1958. 10. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to examine the respective functions of a Public Prosecutor and the Counsel engaged by a complainant in re Bhupalli Malliah and others, Referred Trial No. 40 of 1958. (AIR 1959 Andhra Pradesh 477) While concurring with the leading judgment rendered by Justice Sanjeeva Row Nayudu, Justice Krishna Rao held that it is an undesirable practice to get the duties of the Public Prosecutor performed by a proxy whenever a private person engages a Pleader for that purpose. 11. Another Division Bench of this court in Medichetty Ramakistiah and others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1959 Andhra Pradesh 659) was confronted with a question of fairness when the sessions case was allowed to be conducted entirely by a Counsel engaged by a private party. This Court while setting out that the public prosecutors are not merely the representatives of the State, but their office is one of trust and responsibility, examined the question in great detail. Justice Bhimasankaram speaking for the Bench has set out the principle in paragraphs (9) and (10) as under: 9. But what exactly does the word ‘conduct’ import? It conveys the idea of leading and guiding; that is to say, the person who conducts the prosecution determines all important questions of policy involved in the course of the trial and the attitude to be adopted by the prosecution towards material objections raised or demands made by the accused with respect to the evidence. So long, therefore, as the Public Prosecutor leads and guides, in the above sense, the pleader for the private party, no objection to such a procedure could be entertained. But if in a particular case it happens that the very conduct of the prosecution is completely left in the hands of such a pleader, then the provisions of the Code must be held to have been violated. 10. But if in a particular case it happens that the very conduct of the prosecution is completely left in the hands of such a pleader, then the provisions of the Code must be held to have been violated. 10. To sum up, the conduct of all prosecutions before a Court of Session shall be in the hands of a Public Prosecutor appointed under Section 492 subject to his power to instruct a duly qualified person acting under his directions, and where either before a Magistrate or before a Court of Session, a pleader is instructed by a private individual to prosecute any person in a case before any court, the pleader so instructed may act in that case subject to the over-all supervision of the Public Prosecutor. Such a pleader can conduct the examination, cross-examination and re-examination of witnesses as also address arguments to the court. These provisions do not, however, authorise the abdication of his functions by the Public Prosecutor; he should continue to be in charge of the case and to issue directions on all important matters. 11. These provisions are clearly conceived in the public interest as well as in the interest of the accused because the position of the Public Prosecutor is, it must be borne in mind, unlike that of any advocate appearing for a private party. It is well-recognised, to use the words of Crompton J., in R.v. Puddick, (1865) 4 F and F 497 at p. 499, Public Prosecutors “should regard themselves rather as Ministers of Justice assisting in its administration than as advocates”—an observation which was adopted by the Court of Criminal Appeal in R. v. Banks, 1916 2 KB 621. Unless, therefore, the control of the Public Prosecutor is there, the prosecution by a pleader for a private party may degenerate into a legalized means for wreaking private vengeance. The prosecution instead of being a fair and dispassionate presentation of the facts of the case for the determination of the Court, would he transformed into a battle between two parties in which one was trying to get better of the other, by whatever means available. It is true that in every case there is the over-all control of the court in regard to the conduct of the case by either party. But is cannot extend to the point of ensuring that in all matters one party is fair to the other. It is true that in every case there is the over-all control of the court in regard to the conduct of the case by either party. But is cannot extend to the point of ensuring that in all matters one party is fair to the other. A prosecution, to use a familiar phrase, ought not to be a persecution. The principle that the Public Prosecutor should be scrupulously fair to the accused and present his case with detachment and without evincing any anxiety to secure a conviction, is based upon high policy and as such courts should be astute to suffer no inroad upon its integrity. Otherwise there will be no guarantee that the trial will be as fair to the accused as a criminal trial ought to be. The State and the Public Prosecutor acting for it are only supposed to be putting all the facts of the case before the Court to obtain its decision thereon and not to obtain a conviction by any means fair or foul. Therefore, it is right and proper that courts should be zealous to see that the prosecution of an offender is not handed over completely to a professional gentleman instructed by a private party.” (emphasis is generated by me) 12. In fact, in Shiv Kumar v. Hukam Chand and another (1999 Supreme Court Cases (Crl) 1277) the Supreme Court has set out that the sessions trials should be prosecuted only by a Public Prosecutor and not by any Counsel engaged by any aggrieved private party not merely for the protection of accused persons, but for ensuring fairness to the accused who faces prosecution requires the same. The appellant Shiv Kumar in that case was the de facto complainant and he moved an application before the Sessions Court seeking necessary permission to be given for conducting the case under the directions of the Public Prosecutor. In that backdrop, the Supreme Court has pointed out the distinction in principle between the provisions contained in Sections 301 and 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by pointing out that in a Magistrate’s court anybody, excepting a police officer below the rank of an Inspector can conduct prosecution, it the Magistrate permits him to do so and when once such a permission is granted, the person concerned can appoint any Counsel to conduct the prosecution on his behalf in the Magistrate’s court. But, such a laxity is not extended to other courts. In paragraph (13) of the judgment, Thomas, J, speaking for the Bench has brought out the rationale behind this in the following words: “13. From the scheme of the Code the legislative intention is manifestly clear that prosecution in a Sessions Court cannot be conducted by any one other than the Public Prosecutor. The legislature reminds the State that the policy must strictly conform to fairness in the trial of an accused in a Sessions Court. A Public Prosecutor is not expected to show a thirst to reach the case in the conviction of the accused somehow or the other irrespective of the true facts involved in the case. The expected attitude of the Public Prosecutor while conducting prosecution must be couched in fairness not only to the Court and to the investigating agencies but to the accused as well. If an accused is entitled to any legitimate benefit during trial the Public Prosecutor should not scuttle/conceal it. On the contrary, it is the duty of the Public Prosecutor to winch it to the fore and make it available to the accused. Even if the defence counsel overlooked it, Public Prosecutor has the added responsibility to bring it to the notice of the Court if it comes to his knowledge. A private counsel, if allowed a free hand to conduct prosecution would focus on bringing the case to conviction even if it is not a fit case to be so convicted. That is the reason why Parliament applied a bridle on him and subjected his role strictly to the instructions given by the Public Prosecutor.” (emphasis is mine) 13. It is therefore very clear that all trials in sessions cases have got to be carried out by the Public Prosecutor, but not by any other person or Counsel engaged by him. 14. The petitioner herein was the de facto complainant in Sessions Case No. 22 of 2011 on the file of the 1st respondent court. Therefore, he cannot be permitted to carry on the prosecution. He cannot object the sessions case to be conducted by the Public Prosecutor attached to the sessions court. Therefore, I cannot concede in any manner the right of the petitioner herein to prevent the Public Prosecutor from conducting the trial in Sessions Case No. 22 of 2011. Therefore, he cannot be permitted to carry on the prosecution. He cannot object the sessions case to be conducted by the Public Prosecutor attached to the sessions court. Therefore, I cannot concede in any manner the right of the petitioner herein to prevent the Public Prosecutor from conducting the trial in Sessions Case No. 22 of 2011. Therefore, the 1st respondent is directed to take up the trial of Sessions case No. 22 of 2011 as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. This writ petition therefore stands disposed of with this order. No costs.