JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ajit Prasad, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 and Mr. B.N.Ojha, the learned counsel for the respondent State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.7.2019 passed in Criminal Revision No.262 of 2019 passed by the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI, Ranchi. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing trial in connection with G.R.No.6592 of 2013 and pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, at Ranchi. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the witnesses were examined, however, subsequently the counsel of the informant has filed a petition under section 311 Cr.P.C before the learned court and the learned trial court by order dated 07.3.2019 has been pleased to reject the said petition which was challenged by the informant through his counsel in Criminal Revision No.262 of 2019. He submits that the learned revisional court has set aside the order of the learned trial court and directed the trial court to take evidence of the petitioner on record within three days. He submits that in light of section 301 Cr.P.C only the Public Prosecutors are allowed to conduct the proceedings and at any stage the private counsels for the informant are not allowed to conduct the proceedings as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rekha Murarka v. State of W.B., (2020) 2 SCC 474 and relied at paragraph nos.7 to 11 of the said judgment, which are quoted hereinbelow: “7. In our criminal justice system, the Public Prosecutor occupies a position of great importance. Given that crimes are treated as a wrong against the society as a whole, his role in the administration of justice is crucial, as he is not just a representative of the aggrieved person, but that of the State at large. Though he is appointed by the Government, he is not a servant of the Government or the investigating agency. He is an officer of the court and his primary duty is to assist the court in arriving at the truth by putting forth all the relevant material on behalf of the prosecution. While discharging these duties, he must act in a manner that is fair to the court, to the investigating agencies, as well to the accused. He is an officer of the court and his primary duty is to assist the court in arriving at the truth by putting forth all the relevant material on behalf of the prosecution. While discharging these duties, he must act in a manner that is fair to the court, to the investigating agencies, as well to the accused. This means that in instances where he finds material indicating that the accused legitimately deserves a benefit during the trial, he must not conceal it. The space carved out for the Public Prosecutor is clearly that of an independent officer who secures the cause of justice and fair play in a criminal trial. 8. In light of this exposition, we find it useful to advert to certain provisions of CrPC that highlight the role of a Public Prosecutor and the prerequisites for a person holding that office, most significant amongst which is Section 24: “24. Public Prosecutors.—(1) For every High Court, the Central Government or the State Government shall, after consultation with the High Court, appoint a Public Prosecutor and may also appoint one or more Additional Public Prosecutors, for conducting in such Court, any prosecution, appeal or other proceeding on behalf of the Central Government or State Government, as the case may be. *** (7) A person shall be eligible to be appointed as a Public Prosecutor or an Additional Public Prosecutor … only if he has been in practice as an advocate for not less than seven years. (8) The Central Government or the State Government may appoint, for the purposes of any case or class of cases, a person who has been in practice as an advocate for not less than ten years as a Special Public Prosecutor: Provided that the Court may permit the victim to engage an advocate of his choice to assist the prosecution under this subsection.” (emphasis supplied) Other important provisions are as follows: “225. Trial to be conducted by Public Prosecutor.—In every trial before a Court of Session, the prosecution shall be conducted by a Public Prosecutor. *** 301. 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 or appeal. *** 301. 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 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 a 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: *** (2) Any person conducting the prosecution may do so personally or by a pleader.” 9. From a reading of these provisions, it is clear that a Public Prosecutor is entrusted with the responsibility of conducting the prosecution of a case. That this is a crucial role is evident from conditions such as in Section 24(7), which stipulates a minimum legal experience of seven years for a person to be eligible to be a Public Prosecutor. It is further clear from a joint reading of Section 301 and the proviso to Section 24(8) that the two provisions are mutually complementary. There is no bar on the victim engaging a private counsel to assist the prosecution, subject to the permission of the court. 10. Contrary to the argument made by the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 1, we do not find that the use of the words “under this sub-section” in the proviso to Section 24(8) implies that a victim's counsel can only be engaged to assist a Special Public Prosecutor. Such an interpretation would go against Section 301(2), which makes the pleader instructed by a private person subject to the directions of the Public Prosecutor or the Assistant Public Prosecutor. In our considered opinion, a harmonious reading should be given to these provisions to give them full effect. Such an interpretation would go against Section 301(2), which makes the pleader instructed by a private person subject to the directions of the Public Prosecutor or the Assistant Public Prosecutor. In our considered opinion, a harmonious reading should be given to these provisions to give them full effect. Furthermore, credence should be given to the overall emphasis on victimology underlying the 2009 Amendment Bill, as reflected in its Statement of Objects and Reasons: “Statement of Objects and Reasons.—The need to amend the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to ensure fair and speedy justice and to tone up the criminal justice system has been felt for quite some time. The Law Commission has undertaken a comprehensive review of the Code of Criminal Procedure in its 154th Report and its recommendations have been found very appropriate, particularly those relating to provisions concerning… victimology… 2. … At present, the victims are the worst sufferers in a crime and they don't have much role in the court proceedings. They need to be given certain rights and compensation, so that there is no distortion of the criminal justice system.” In view of this context and the provisions of CrPC, there appears to be no justifiable basis for applying the provision only with respect to Special Public Prosecutors. Thus, we find that the assistance given by the victim's counsel is meant to be given to the prosecution in general. 11. In light of this, we now proceed to consider the extent to which such assistance can be accorded. As mentioned supra, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has argued that there may be instances where the Public Prosecutor may fail to perform his functions properly, whether deliberately or due to oversight, which may obstruct justice instead of furthering it. To meet the ends of justice in such cases, he submitted that the role of the victim's counsel should not be limited to filing of written arguments as provided with respect to pleaders engaged by private parties under Section 301(2). Instead, it should extend to making oral arguments and examining witnesses as well. On a perusal of the arguments advanced and the decisions relied on by both the parties, we find that such a broad mandate for the victim's counsel cannot be given effect to, as it is not rooted in the text of CrPC.” 4. On the other hand, Mr. On a perusal of the arguments advanced and the decisions relied on by both the parties, we find that such a broad mandate for the victim's counsel cannot be given effect to, as it is not rooted in the text of CrPC.” 4. On the other hand, Mr. Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the O.P.No.2 submits that in light of sub-section 3 of section 397 of the Cr.P.C the revision can be filed by any person. 5. Mr. Ojha, the learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the ratio relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is well settled and in the criminal proceeding, the Public Prosecutors are allowed to conduct the proceedings. 6. In view of the above facts and the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and also considering section 301 of the Cr.P.C, it is crystal clear that the proceedings can be conducted in the criminal case only through the Public Prosecutors, however, at the same time, if the victims counsel finds that the Public Prosecutor has not examined a witness properly and not incorporated his suggestions either, he may bring certain questions to the notice of the Public Prosecutor or Court and if the Judge finds merit in them, he may take action accordingly by invoking his powers under Section 311 as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Rekha Murarka v. State of W.B.’ (supra). 7. On perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that P.W.4 has stated that the recording the statement by the accused of extortion of money were recorded by him on mobile. 8. It is well settled that order passed under section 311 Cr.P.C is an interlocutory order and as such revision against such order was clearly barred under section 397(2) Cr.P.C. Reference may be made to the case of Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 153 at para-5. 9. In view of the settled proposition of law the impugned order dated 12.7.2019 in Criminal Revision No. No.262 of 2019 is set aside. 10. It is open to the O.P.No.2 to bring into the knowledge of the Public Prosecutor about the statement of P.W.4 who can take action by way of filing proper petition. 11. 9. In view of the settled proposition of law the impugned order dated 12.7.2019 in Criminal Revision No. No.262 of 2019 is set aside. 10. It is open to the O.P.No.2 to bring into the knowledge of the Public Prosecutor about the statement of P.W.4 who can take action by way of filing proper petition. 11. The learned court is also empowered to suo motu call the P.W.4 in light of the evidence already there with regard to recording of the accused, voice of extortion, in his mobile. 12. With above observation and direction, Cr.M.P.No.2687 of 2019 stands disposed of. 13. I.A. if any also stands disposed of.