Uttarakhand High CourtKm. Shyam Sundari Alias Neha vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 14 September, 2016Author:Servesh Kumar GuptaBench:Servesh Kumar GuptaIN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL


               Crl. Misc. Application No.22 of 2016
                         (U/s 407Cr.P.C.)

Shyam Sundari @ Neha
                                                                               .... Applicant
                                             Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others
                                                                        .... Respondents

Mr. Deep Chand Joshi, Advocate, for the applicant.
Mr. V.K. Jemini, Dy. Adv. General, for the State/respondent no.1.
Mr. A.S. Rawat, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. P.C. Pethshali, Adv. for respondent nos.2 &3.



Hon'ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.Having            heard         learned            Counsel            for    the
applicant as well as learned Senior Counsel on behalf
of the accused/respondents nay learned State counsel,
it transpires that the Sessions Trial No.335 of 2013,
State v. Gulab Singh & others, is pending adjudication
in the Court of Sessions Judge, Haridwar, which is at
its final stage wherein only the arguments are to be
heard for delivering the judgment.Without            burdening               this       order,          with   all
details, suffice it to say that the ends of justice would
be met if such trial is transferred to the Court of
Additional District Judge in the same district.So, in exercise of powers vested on this Courtu/s
407Cr.P.C., I transfer the above-numbered sessions
trial from the Court of Sessions Judge, Haridwar to the
Court manned by Ms. Anjushri Juyal, Additional
District Judge, Haridwar who has also been notified to2try the cases under thePOCSO Act. Learned Presiding
Officer of such Court will not grant any adjournment to
either of the parties, keeping in mind that the accused
persons are in jail, and at the same time, shall not
permit the battery of private counsels to argue the
matter on behalf of the State, as is the mandate of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of'Shiv Kumar v.
Hukum Chand & another' 1999(2) JIC 695 (Full Bench),
wherein it was held that:-"Prosecution in a sessions court cannot be
conducted      by   any   one   other   than   the   Public
Prosecutor. A private counsel, if allowed 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. It is not
merely an overall supervision which the Public
Prosecutor is expected to perform in such cases when
a privately engaged counsel is permitted to act on his
behalf. The role which a private counsel in such a
situation can play is, perhaps, comparable with that
of a junior advocate conducting the case of his senior
in a court. The private counsel is to act on behalf of
the Public Prosecutor albeit the fact he is engaged in
the case by a private party. If the role of the Public
Prosecutor is allowed to shrink to a mere supervisory
role the trial would become a combat between the
private party and the accused which would render
the legislative mandate in Section 225 of the Code a
dead letter.3On behalf of the State, the trial shall be
permitted to be argued only by the District Government
Counsel (Criminal) and none else, whereas on behalf of
the defence, the case shall be argued only by a single
counsel which may be of the choice of the accused
persons.With   the   above     directions,   the   petition
stands finally disposed of.Let a copy of this order be issued to learned
counsel for the parties today itself as per rules.(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.)
                                     14.09.2016
Rdang