IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Monday, July 4, 2011. Present: Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Ravi Shankar Crl.P.No. 5147 of 2011 Between: Korripalli Estheru Rani …Petitioner and Lanka Mohan Das and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Crl.P.No. 5147 of 2011 O r d e r: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. The petitioner herein is the de facto complainant in S.C.No. 469 of 2008 on the file of the court of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District (trial court). She filed petition – Crl.M.P.No. 45 of 2011 in the said sessions case before the trial court seeking its permission to engage a counsel for herself to conduct the prosecution and the trial court by its order dated:8.4.2011 dismissed the said petition holding that the petitioner cannot in view of the provisions of Cr.P.C. engage a counsel to conduct prosecution in a sessions case. Questioning that order, the present criminal petition is filed. 3. S. 225 Cr.P.C. expressly lays down that all trials before the Court of Session shall be conducted by a Public Prosecutor and it therefore follows that the prosecution in a sessions case cannot be entrusted to the de facto complainant’s counsel. In view of this legal position the trial court in my opinion rightly dismissed the said petition. 4. Sri Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the de facto complainant wanted to include in the prosecution of accused the offence under section 3 (i)(x) of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’). It is however seen that the police investigated into the matter and charge sheeted the accused only for an offence under section 376 IPC. It was open for the de facto complainant to file a private complaint or file a protest petition before the learned Magistrate after the charge sheet has been filed disputing the view of the investigating officer in not including the offence under the Act. That question is now out side the scope of this petition and hence it is not gone into. 5. Sri Chidambaram however pointed out that having regard to S. 216 Cr.P.C. the trial court can amend the charges basing upon the evidence which may be let in by the prosecution and if such evidence discloses offence under the Act or any other offence the trial court can also take cognizance of such an offence and alter the charges. There is no dispute about this legal position and the de facto complainant can pursue that remedy before the trial court and the said court can consider the same according to Law. 6. While rejecting the relief of setting aside the impugned order, this criminal petition is disposed of in the above terms. _____________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. July 4, 2011. *BVS