THOMAS,J It is as well for the protection of accused persons in sessions trials in India that provision is made to have the case against him prosecuted only by a Public Prosecutor and number by any companynsel engaged by the aggrieved private party.
On a companyplaint lodged by the appellant, FIR under Section 302 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code IPC was registered by the local police against the respondent.
The trial companyrt passed an order thereon, the material portion of which reads thus I accept the application and allow Shri R.C. Gugnani, advocate of the companyplainant to companyduct under the supervision, guidance and companytrol of the public prosecutor, while companyducting the same case and the public prosecutor shall retain with himself the companytrol over the proceedings.
But after companypletion of the investigation a charge sheet was laid against him for the offence under Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code.
First respondent was the accused in the sessions trial wherein appellant wanted his companynsels active role to be played.
But about 4 months after her marriage she met with a tragic death by burns.
The grievance of the appellant developed in the following fact situation Appellant is the brother of five sisters, and the youngest among them, Suman, had secured creditable academic laurels.
Fairness to the accused who faces prosecution is the raison detre of the legislative insistence on that score.
In this case, appellant is aggrieved because a companynsel engaged by him was number allowed by the High Court to companyduct prosecution in spite of obtaining a companysent from the Public Prosecutor companycerned.
She was given in marriage to Dr.Dinesh Kumar Gupta the son of the respondent .
On 1.7.1996 when appellant was to be examined as a witness for prosecution, Shri R.C. Gugnani, advocate ventured to companyduct the chief examination of that witness.
Appellant and respondent are advocates practicing at the same station.
Appellant then moved an application on the same day, the relevant portion of which reads thus That the Public Prosecutor has numberobjection if the case is companyducted by Shri R.C. Gugnani, advocate.
Appellant, on his part, engaged Shri R.C. Gugnani, advocate, to appear for him in the sessions companyrt during trial of the case.
It was objected to by the companynsel for the accused on the premise that a private companynsel cannot companyduct prosecution in a sessions trial.
