IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 955 Of 2009 Sharif …………..Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & Another ………….Respondents Mr. Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner. Mr. Nandan Arya, learned A.G.A. for respondent no.1. Dated: December 11th , 2009 Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nandan Arya, learned A.G.A. for the respondent no.1. By way of the present petition order dated 25.11.2009 is being assailed. Mr. Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that on 25.11.2009, an application was moved seeking adjournment by the counsel of the complainant, which was not opposed by the counsel for the accused, hence it was wrongly rejected. Mr. Pawan Kumar further argued that statements of D.W.-1,D.W.2 and D.W.3 were recorded by the Presiding Officer himself and no in chief was done through the counsel of the accused. His further argument is that Addl. District Government Counsel (Prosecutor) has no right to cross-examine the defence witnesses in the absence of counsel for the complainant. I do not find any force in the argument of Mr. Pawann Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Present is a case under Section 342/376 I.P.C.. Case is triable by Sessions. In a case triable by Sessions from the prosecution side prosecutor has right to proceed with the case. Private counsel appearing for the complainant can only assist the prosecutor, however he cannot claim independent right over the prosecutor. There is nothing to prove that Presiding Officer of the court recorded statement of D.W.-1,D.W.-2 and D.W.-3 in the absence of counsel for the accused. Petition is devoid of merit, hence dismissed. (Alok Singh, J.) 11.12.2009 Nishant