Point of Law: it very clear that it is extremely undesirable and quite improper that a Public Prosecutor should be allowed to sit back, handing over the conduct of the case to a counsel, however eminent he may be, briefed by the complainant in the case.

ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) aggrieved by the order dated 02.12.2015 passed in Crl.M.P.No.775 of 2015 in C.C.No.116 of 2015 by Special Magistrate Court at Bheemunipatnam wherein the petition filed by the complainant under Section 302 Cr.P.C. praying the Court to grant him permission to conduct the prosecution or conduct the case by his pleader Sri P.A.K.Kishore was allowed.

2. The parties shall be referred to as they are arrayed in C.C.No.116 of 2015. The petitioner before this Court is the accused.

3. The facts of the case in brief are:

The complainant lodged a report alleging that on 22.01.2010 at about 7:00 A.M. the accused armed with knives and sticks trespassed into the complainant’s land situated in survey No.134/3, Madhurawada though the possession of the complainant is within their knowledge and attempted to lay hut and construct barbed fencing in and around his land. The accused carried barbed fencing and other material for the purpose of laying fencing in and around his land. They also threatened the men of the complainant with dire consequences. Basing on the said report, Bheemunipatnam Police registered crime No.27 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the same and ordered to issue process against the accused. Subsequently on constitution of the Special Magistrate Court, the case was transferred to said court and it was renumbered as C.C.No.116 of 2015. When the matter was coming up for trial the complainant filed petition stating that Assistant Public Prosecutor, who is incharge of his case is a regular Assistant Public Prosecutor of IV Metropolitan Magistrate as well as another Court at Bheemunipatnam. It is also alleged in the petition that it is practically impossible for the prosecutor to devote and concentrate for conducting trial of his case to the satisfaction of the complainant. The present case is registered for the offence punishable under Section 477 I.P.C. and it involves intrinsic question of facts touching the possession in respect of land and semblance of title of the complainant in that regard and corollary substantial evidence has to be let in.

4. It is also stated in the petition that a glance at the charge sheet reveals that investigation is not conducted in proper perspective touching Section 447 of I.P.C. and the prosecution failed to collect any documentary evidence either from the complainant or from any government authority to substantiate title and possession of the complainant in respect of the land covered by the scene of offence, which is essential for establishing title and possession. In addition to that the prosecution has not taken any steps to cause production of the concerned documents to substantiate the title and possession of the petitioner in respect of land covered by the scene of offence, which is evident from the record that time was granted, matter underwent several adjournments and ultimately the matter was posted on 08.10.2015 for trial and examination of prosecution witnesses. The complainant alleged that there is no ray of hope for the complainant that steps in that regard would be taken by Assistant Public Prosecutor even during the course of the trial.

5. The learned Judge after hearing both sides has passed the order impugned observing that from a perusal of the charge sheet and other documents, it is evident that the investigating officer failed to gather any material in support of prosecution and failed to discharge his duty without establishing the possession and enjoyment of the disputed property, has filed charge sheet. It was also observed by the Court below that the Assistant Public Prosecutor was also directed by her higher officials to attend all three Courts. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the complaina