State of U.P. ....................... Opposite Parties Counsel for Applicant : Sri Vaibhav Kalia Counsel for Opposite Party : Sri K.K. Singh and AGA AND Criminal Miscellaneous case No. 3770 of 2013 (U/s 482 Cr.P.C.) Virendra Singh, son of Late Gunga Bux Singh, resident of House No.557/3A, Om Nagar, Alambagh, District Lucknow. ..................... Applicant/Petitioner Vs. State of U.P. ....................... Opposite Parties Counsel for Applicant : Sri Vaibhav Kalia Counsel for Opposite Party : Sri K.K. Singh and AGA Hon'ble Vishnu Chandra Gupta, J. Judgement 1. By means of these petitions under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') the petitioners (Lokesh Singh son of deceased (C.P.Singh) has prayed for setting aside the order dated 16.08.2013 (in Crl. Misc. Case No.3769 of 2013) and order dated3.8.2013(in Crl. Misc Case No.3770 of 2013 filed by petitioner (Virendra Singh, first informant of the case) passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Lucknow and further directing the trial court to allow the victim/petitioner to address the oral arguments in Sessions Trial No. 341 of 2007, under Section 302, 120B IPC, P.S. Ashiyana, District Lucknow. 2. Very interesting and important question of law has been raised in this petition; whether an Advocate engaged by victim of the case has right to address the court after conclusion of the trial? 3. Sri Gopal Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner assisted by Sri Vaibhav Kalia, Advocate submitted that by Code of Criminal Procedure amendment Act 2008 (5 of 2009) certain amendments were made in the Cr.P.C. to facilitate the participation of victim in criminal prosecution of an offender. Section 2(wa) definition of 'victim' has been added quoted herein below: "2(wa) "victim" means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression "victim" includes his or her guardian or legal heir;) 4. In subsection 8 of Section 24 of Cr.P.C a proviso has been added whereby court was authorised to permit the victim to engage an Advocate of his choice to assist the prosecution. The relevant provision of Section 24(1) and 24(8) are reproduced herein below: "24. Public Prosecutors.(1) For every High Court, the Central Government or the State Government shall, after consultation with the High Court, appoint a Public Prosecutor and may also appoint one or more Additional Public Prosecutors, for conducting in such Court, any prosecution, appeal or other proceeding on behalf of the Central Government or State Government, as the case may be. (2)...... (3)...... (4....... (5)..... (6)..... (7)..... (8)The Central Government or the State Government may appoint, for the purposes of any case or class of cases, a person who has been in practice as an advocate for not less than ten years as a Special Public Prosecutor." 15[provided that the Court may permit the victim to engage an advocate of his choice to assist the prosecution under this subsection.] 5. The facts giving rise to present controversy are necessary to be looked into. 6. A sessions trial No. 341 of 2007 (State Vs. Shiv Bahadur and Ors), under Section 120B and Section 302 IPC is pending in Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Lucknow. Under proviso to Section 24(8) Cr.P.C the petitioners sought permission for advancement of oral argument along with public prosecutor in the aforesaid Sessions trial for extending the necessary assistance and enabling the court to decide the case in proper way. It is not in dispute that entire evidence is over and Public Prosecutor has already finished the argument in the case on behalf of prosecution and only thereafter the right of audience has been claimed by the pet