IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2580 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : July 30, 2009 Lachho alias Lichhi ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana for respondent no. 1 Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate, for respondent nos. 2 to 4 Mr. Manoj Makkar, Advocate for Mr. RVS Chugh, Advocate, for respondent no. 5 None for respondent no. 6 L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Criminal Misc. No. 56088 of 2008 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 5 days in filing the revision petition is condoned. Criminal Revision No. 2580 of 2008 Lachho alias Lichhi has filed this revision petition assailing order dated 19.8.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. Manbhari filed criminal complaint against respondent nos. 2 to 6 for offences under sections 302 and 120-B IPC. The case stands committed to Sessions Court. Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are facing trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. However, Manbhari complainant has since died on 10.8.2007. Petitioner Lachho alias Lichhi is daughter of complainant and is sister of the deceased. Petitioner moved Criminal Revision No. 2580 of 2008 (O&M) -2- application in the trial court seeking permission to prosecute the case. The application was opposed by the accused on the ground that the trial before the Sessions Court has to be conducted by Public Prosecutor as mandated by section 225 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C.). This contention has found favour with learned Additional Sessions Judge who has accordingly dismissed the application of the petitioner observing that the petitioner is only a witness in the case whereas the Public Prosecutor is already being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the counsel for the complainant who was assisting the Public Prosecutor in the trial has ceased to have authority to appear for the complainant in view of death of the complainant and therefore, petitioner wants to engage counsel who can assist the Public Prosecutor in the trial in terms of section 301 Cr.P.C. There is considerable merit in the contention. The observation of learned Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned order that the Public Prosecutor is being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant cannot be accepted because the complainant has since died and the counsel engaged by her, therefore, no longer has authority to appear for the complainant. In these circumstances, the petitioner being daughter of the complainant and also being sister of the deceased is entitled to assist the Public Prosecutor in terms of section 301 Cr.P.C. The said section is Criminal Revision No. 2580 of 2008 (O&M) -3- reproduced herein :- “ 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 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. “ In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner has a right to engage counsel and to instruct the said counsel in terms of the aforesaid provision. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.8.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to engage counsel for assisting the Public Prosecutor in the trial of respondent Nos. 2 to 6 in terms of section 301 Cr.P.C. The petitioner shall be substituted as complainant for Manbhari. ( L.N. Mittal ) July 30, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'