JUDGMENT U.B. Saha , J. The instant revision petition isfiled by Sri Ratan Kumar Das ,the petitioner, challenging the order dated 30.01.2013 passed by the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, West Tripura , Agartala in case No. S.T. 14 of 2012, whereby and whereunder the learned Addl. Sessions Judge rejected theprayer for adjournment of the P.W. s namely Ranjit Das , Manna Das and Bimal Roy. Heard Mr. R. Datta ,learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Sarkar , learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the Staterespondent. Also heard Mr. H. Debnath ,learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondents. 2. The brief facts of the case arethat on 25.09.2010, the petitioner who described him as petitioner (hereinafterreferred to as petitioner) submitted a written complaint addressing to O/C, Amtali PS stating, inter alia ,that his son Tutan Das lefthis house in the evening of 24.09.2010, but did not return to home. Thereafter,all on a sudden, at about 3 a.m. thatnight the police personnel came to his house and reported that his son Tutan was murdered by some miscreants and his dead body wasleft by those miscreants to the jungle situated behind the Ramthakur temple at Ramthakur para .It is also stated that on 22.09.2010, there was a hot altercation between hisson and the some villagers namely Gurupada Biswas , Biswajit Biswas , Anil Majumder , Manik Majumder , Sujit Biswas and Amar Dey , who had also threatenedto kill his son with dire consequences and for which he strongly suspected theabove noted persons for murdering his son. On the basis of the aforesaidcomplaint, a specific police case being Amtali PScase No. 96/10 under Sections 302/34 of IPC was registered against theaforesaid suspected persons and finally, upon investigation the police has filed the charge-sheet against the aforesaid sixaccused. 3. Upon receipt of thecharge-sheet, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bishalgarh after taking cognizance committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura , Agartala and thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge transferred the case to the learnedAddl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, West Tripura , Agartala for trial. 4. The petitioner appointedlearned Advocate Mr. Ratan Datta as his engaged counsel to assist the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. Thelearned trial Court also permitted the said counsel to participate in theproceeding for assisting the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, West Tripura , Agartala for trial. 4. The petitioner appointedlearned Advocate Mr. Ratan Datta as his engaged counsel to assist the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. Thelearned trial Court also permitted the said counsel to participate in theproceeding for assisting the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. Learned trialCourt after hearing the learned counsel for the parties prepared the calendarfor examining the prosecution witnesses fixing date from 23.06.2012 to30.06.2012 and on those dates, the witnesses namely Ranjit Das , Manna Das and Bimal Roy appeared before the learned trial Court on thebasis of summons received by them. But surprisingly, the aforesaid witnesseswere not examined by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on that date and thelearned Addl. P.P. who was the Incharge of the casedirected those witnesses for appearing on the next calendar dates i.e. on30.01.2013 and 31.01.2013 .. On 30.01.2013, theaforesaid witnesses filed an application seeking for adjournment as the witness Ranjit Das was a candidateof 13th Assembly Constituency from Indian National Congress, though he wasinterested to attend before the court for giving evidence and the other twowitnesses being the relatives of aforesaid Ranjit Das and busy for election work, they also could not appearin the court and prayed for adjournment and such application was rejected bythe learned trial Court on 30.01.2013. On 31.01.2013, the learned trial Courtexamined another witness as produced by the prosecution and closed theprosecution evidence fixing the case on 22.02.2013 for examination of theaccused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C .). On 22.2.2013, an application was filed by thepetitioner, petitioner herein, for adjourning the examination of accused underSection 313 of Cr.P.C . so that he can obtain an orderof stay against the order dated 30.01.2013. The said application was alsorejected by the learned trial Court and the case was fixed on 15.03.2013 forexamination of the accused persons. 5. Mr. Datta ,learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while urging for setting asidethe order dated 30.01.2013 wherein the learned trial Court rejected the prayerof the charge-sheeted witnesses who were also earlier not examined by the Addl.Public Prosecutor would contend that as a result of such rejection of theprayer for adjournment the petitioner would be seriously prejudiced and theaccused would also get a chance of acquittal. He further submits that even if awitness is not willing to appear before the court for adducing evidence, thenalso the court has the power to direct the prosecution for producing thiswitness for the interest of justice. But in the instant case, neither theprosecution nor the learned trial Court did make any attempt for production ofthe charge-sheeted eye witnesses. He further submits that the accused arebelonged to a rival political party. He has finally contended that though thepetitioner did not challenge the order dated 31.01.2013 and order dated22.02.2013 by which the learned trial Court fixed the date for examination ofthe accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C ., in thatsituation also the revisional Court can set asidethose orders by exercising its inherent power for the ends of justice. 6. Mr. Sarkar ,learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondents while counteringthe submission of Mr. Datta , would contend that thoughthe witnesses namely Ranjit Das ,Manna Das and Bimal Roy hadfiled one application for adjournment of the case for providing them anopportunity for adducing the evidence, but the said application was not movedby the learned counsel for the petitioner and the said application was notfiled through the prosecution. Thus, the learned trial Court rightly rejectedthe prayer for adjournment. He further submits that the petitioner at no pointof time has made any prayer before the learned trial Court for examining any ofthe charge-sheeted witnesses, rather he has filed one application for stayingthe examination of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C .for obtaining a stay order from this court against the order dated 30.01.2013filed by the witnesses and unless the subsequent orders passed by the learnedtrial Court are under challenge, this Court cannot quash those orders. 7. Mr. Debnath ,learned counsel appearing for the accused respondents, has raised a preliminaryobjection to the effect that the revision application filed by the petitioneris not legally maintainable, as the prosecution was initiated on the basis of apolice report. He further submits that the criminal law should not be used asan instrument of wreaking private vengeance by an aggrieved party against theperson who, according to that party, had caused either injury to his interestor committed any offence relating to his interest. He further submits that the criminal law should not be used asan instrument of wreaking private vengeance by an aggrieved party against theperson who, according to that party, had caused either injury to his interestor committed any offence relating to his interest. He further submits thatexcept on exceptional cases, in criminal matters the party who is treated as anaggrieved party is the State which is the custodian to the social interest ofthe community at large and also the custodian of maintenance of law and order.So it is for the State to take all the steps necessary either for bringing theaccused or the prosecution witnesses to prove its case. In the instant case,the prosecution did not either file any application for examination of thosewitnesses or also did not support the contention of the petitioner. He hasfinally contended that mere filing an application by the witnesses is notenough for getting an order of adjournment when the same is not moved by thelearned counsel. He has also pointed out that the learned counsel engaged bythe petitioner did not appear before the learned trial Court not only on thatdate, but on earlier occasion also he did not appear before the learned trialCourt, which would be evident from the orders dated 26.06.12, 28.06.12 and29.06.12. 8. Before expressing any opinionregarding the impugned order, it would be proper on the part of this court todecide the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Debnath ,learned counsel, relating to maintainability of the instant revision petition. 9. There is no doubt that in casesinitiated on police reports it is the State, who is the aggrieved party andordinarily a complainant has no locus standi to cometo Court. But an order like the one under consideration in this revision isnothing but denial of justice to the petitioner and also prejudice to hisinterest as it is he who lost his son. 10. In the case of Krishan Kant v. Dilip Kumar &Ors. [1984 CRI. L.J. 1003], a Single Bench of Allahabad High Court held as follows:-- There can be no denial that incases initiated on police reports it is the State, who is the aggrieved partyand ordinarily a complainant has no locus standi tocome to Court. But an order like the one under consideration in this revisionis clearly perverse and causes miscarriage of justice, hence, requiresinterference by the High Court. But an order like the one under consideration in this revisionis clearly perverse and causes miscarriage of justice, hence, requiresinterference by the High Court. In the case of Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. (1983 All Cri C 347) and Gajadharsingh v. Mahesh Chandra, 1981 All Cri C 66 (SOC): (AIR 1981 NOC 206) it has been held that ifthere is manifest error on point of law causing miscarriage of justice thisCourt would not hesitate in exercising its revisional powers even at the instance of a private party. It is not usual for the HighCourt to entertain revisional application filed bythe complainant direct but after it has been admitted it must be disposed of onmerits. 11. In Mrs. Maninder Kaur v. State& Ors. [2000 CRI. L.J. 3111], a learned SingleJudge of Delhi High Court while considering a revision petition filed by thecomplainant Maninder Kaur held that:-- In so far as the question relatingto bar of entertaining revision petition filed by a complainant in a State caseis concerned, learned counsel for the respondents could not point out anyprohibition or bar against entertaining any revision petition by an aggrievedcomplainant in a State case. The revision petition could not be equated with anappeal. It may be mentioned that under Section 378(4) even an appeal could befiled against an order of acquittal on the grant of special leave to appealfrom the order of acquittal. Not only that by way of amendmentof Section 372, a proviso has been inserted allowing the victim for preferringan appeal against any order passed by the court acquitting the accused orconvicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation and suchappeal shall lie to the court to which an ordinary appeal lies against an orderof conviction of such court. In the instant case, it is the petitioneradmittedly who has lost his son for the alleged incident of murder. Thus, itcan be said that the petitioner is the real victim and when a victim has aright to prefer an appeal against the order of conviction with lesserpunishment or acquittal, then why a victim like the petitioner should not beallowed to prefer a revision petition against the order prejudicial to him.Thus, according to this court, the revision petition filed by the petitioner ismaintainable. In view of the above, the submission of Mr. Debnath has got no force. 12. In view of the above, the submission of Mr. Debnath has got no force. 12. Now, let us see theapplication filed by the witnesses namely Ranjit Das , Manna Das and Bimal Roy (Annexure-A to the revision petition) on30.01.2013, i.e. the date fixed for examination of witnesses. The applicationfiled by the charge-sheeted witnesses namely Ranjit Das , Manna Das and Bimal Roy is as follows:-- 1) That, this case is fixed beforethis Hon’ble Court for PWs . 2) That, PWs namely Ranjit Das is acandidate of 13th Assembly Constituency from Congress I Party and he isinterested to attend before the Ld. Court to give evidence as he is well conversantabout the facts of the case, but because of pre schedule program of the saidelection he could not attend before the Ld. Court today and hence he is prayingfor time to adjourned the matter. 3) That the other 2 witness namelyManna Das is the son of Ranjjit Das & another witness namely Bimal Roy is also close relative of said Ranjit Das and they are awfully busy with the election work so anadjournment on behalf of three witnesses is prayed for which may kindly beallowed. 4) That this petition is made bonafide and is being filed in the interest of justice. 5) That the rest would besubmitted verbally at the time of hearing. Under the circumstances statedabove it is most humbly prayed that your honour wouldbe kind enough to adjourned the matter for fair endsof justice. 13. It appears from the aforesaidapplication that the charge-sheeted witness Ranjit Das was a candidate in the assembly election and though hewas interested to attend the court for adducing evidence, but due to hiselection program he could not attend the court, for which he sought anadjournment and the other two witnesses being the relative of witness Ranjit Das also busy with theelection work of the relation and made a prayer for adjournment. It is not thecase of the prosecution or the defence that on anyother occasion these witnesses failed to appear before the court even afterreceipt of the summons, rather it appears from the contention made by thepetitioner in the instant petition, particularly the application dated22.02.2013 that the aforesaid witnesses were present before the learned trialCourt by way of filing hazira , but they were notexamined. 14. 14. The order of the learned trialCourt dated 22.02.2013 reads as under:-- Today the case is fixed forexamination of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C .after closure of the prosecution evidence. Learned Addl. P.P. is present. The defacto -complainantfiled an application supported by an affidavit with a prayer for allowing himto obtain and submit an order from the Hon’ble HighCourt on the ground stated in the petition. On the other hand, the accusedpersons on bail are absent by a petition on the ground stated therein. Learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant moved the petition but the learnedAddl. P.P., who conducting the prosecution, vehemently opposed the prayer ofthe defacto complainant, as the defacto -complainant,has acted upon without the consent of the prosecution and the learned Addl.P.P. has further submitted that the defacto -complainantwants to prefer for a revision before the Hon’ble High Court against the order dated 30.01.13. Be that as it may, as to why afterone month and twenty-four days today approached this Court for obtaining a stayorder from the Hon’ble High Court to drag this, casebeyond the authority and as such, the prayer made by the defacto -complainant,may kindly be rejected. Heard theparties at length. Perused thepetition. Before taking consideration, I mayhigh light the sub-Section 2 of Section 301 Cr.P.C .which runs as follows:-- (2) If in any such case anyprivate person the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge ofthe case shall conduct the prosecution, and the pleader so instructed shall acttherein under the directions of the Public Prosecutor or Assistant PublicProsecutor, and may, with the permission of the Court, submit written argumentsafter the evidence is closed in the case. From bare reading of the aforesaidlaw, it seems to me that since the prosecution, who is seisin with this case, closed the chapter of the prosecution evidence on 31.1.13 andnone was present being instructed by a private person( defacto -complainant),and since the petition filed by the learned lawyer being instructed by aprivate person, ( defacto -complainant) without theconsent of the prosecution and learned lawyer being instructed by the defacto -complainant without direction of Public Prosecutorfiled this application and there is a contradiction between the prosecution andlearned lawyer for the defacto -complainant, the saidpetition of the defacto -complainant filed by hislearned lawyer carries no importance, hence, the petition, filed by the defacto -complainant stands rejected. The prayer ofthe accused persons are considered and they are directed to appearbefore this Court on the date fixed. To 15.3.13 for examination of theaccused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C . 15. It appears from the recordthat on 29.08.2012 the petitioner appeared before the learned trial Court as awitness through his engaged counsel, but the learned court below even did notrecord the name of the learned engaged counsel of the petitioner, rather thelearned trial Court in its order mentioned that the learned Addl. PublicProsecutor is present with one witness. It further appears from the record i.e.the application of the petitioner herein, dated 22.02.2013 that though the aforesaidwitnesses appeared on 29th, 30th and 31st August, 2012, but on those dates they were returned back by the learned Addl. P.P. directingthem to appear on 30th and 31st January, 2013 . Therefore, it cannot be said that the witnesses werereluctant to appear before the court from adducing their evidence. It alsofurther appears that on 30.01.2013 while the learned trial Court passed theimpugned order rejecting the prayer for adjournment, the learned Addl. P.P. ofthe State was present and he did not make a prayer for time for producing thosewitnesses, rather he submitted, inter alia , that hehad no knowledge about the facts of the petition. 16. When the statute fix theresponsibility upon the State for prosecution and the State also consequentthereto appoints Public Prosecutor as per provisions of Section 24 of the Cr.P.C . entrusting him with the responsibility of actingonly in the interest of administration of justice and being appointed a PublicProsecutor is become an officer of the Court and whose master is the statute.He is to aid the Court by examining all the witnesses who had knowledge of allthe relevant facts unless he has got sufficient cause to believe that thewitness has come with a predetermine intention of giving false evidence or thathis examination is unnecessary or superfluous and thus, he should place beforethe court all the evidence bearing upon the charge. In the instant case, inplace of supporting the case of the petitioner, the learned Addl. P.P.submitted that he had no knowledge about the facts of the petition. In the instant case, inplace of supporting the case of the petitioner, the learned Addl. P.P.submitted that he had no knowledge about the facts of the petition. Even if itis accepted that at the time of filing the petition, it was not within hisknowledge, but when the order was passed by the learned trial Court, he had theknowledge and he should have supported the prayer for adjournment, as thelearned trial Court permitted the petitioner for assisting the learned P.P. byway of engaging his lawyer. The learned trial Court ought to have consideredthat one of the witnesses namely Ranjit Das was a candidate in the assembly election and for whichhe could not appear and file the application for adjournment. There is no doubtthat always it is not possible to adjourn the case on the ground of absence ofprosecution witnesses, but there may be special circumstances for which awitness is not in a position to appear and in that case, the court has toconsider the relevant facts and pass the appropriate orders in the interest ofjustice. 17. As per Section 311 of theCode, a Court has the power to summon any person as a witness, or examine anyperson in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and reexamineany person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recalland reexamine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential tothe just decision of the case at any stage of enquiry or trial. Thus, if afterfiling of the application by the petitioner, the learned trial Court could havefixed a date for examining the aforesaid charge-sheeted witnesses for justdecision in the case, but that was also not done. This court is of furtheropinion that if in a case the prosecution failed to produce the chargesheeted witnesses whose presence are required for thepurpose of just decision of the case, in that situation the learned trial Courtshould have made all attempts for examining those witnesses. But in the instantcase that has not been done and as a result, the petitioner is prejudiced. 18. According to this court, thelearned trial Court acted mechanically, which is unwarranted. We have toremember that a court is established for rendering justice, not to defeat thesame. It further appears from the record that at the time of admission of theinstant revision petition, the record was called for and as a result, the trialcould not be completed. 18. According to this court, thelearned trial Court acted mechanically, which is unwarranted. We have toremember that a court is established for rendering justice, not to defeat thesame. It further appears from the record that at the time of admission of theinstant revision petition, the record was called for and as a result, the trialcould not be completed. The revisional power isprovided to the High Court by the legislature for preventing the miscarriage ofjustice. 19. The order dated 22.02.2013though not challenged before this court, but it appears that though the learnedcounsel appearing for the petitioner moved the petition for staying the furtherproceeding of the trial for a reasonable time so that the petitioner can obtainan order from the High Court and submit the same before the learned trial Courtand the said application was also opposed by the learned Addl. PublicProsecutor on the ground that the petitioner has acted upon without the consentof the prosecution. When according to the petitioner, the witnesses produced byhim were returned back by the learned Addl. P.P. without examining them, in that situation what other option is remained to himexcept to file the application before the court. Thus, according to this court,the said order is also a perverse one. 20. As the petitioner has anapprehension that he would not get justice being the accused are belonged to arival political party, it would be proper on the part of the Court to removethat apprehension. Thus, considering the facts of the case in hand as anexceptional one, it would be proper to direct the learned trial Court to issuesummons afresh to the witnesses namely Ranjit Das , Manna Das and Bimal Roy and examine them in accordance with law andproceed with the trial accordingly for the interest of justice. 21. In view of the above, theimpugned order dated 30.01.2013 is hereby set aside and the learned trial Courtis directed to issue fresh summons to the aforesaid three charge-sheetedwitnesses, as indicated above, for the interest of justice so that thepetitioner can feel that the court of law is protecting his right to justice ina just manner. 22. In the result, the revisionpetition is allowed. No order as to costs. Send down the lower Court records.