1. These petitions are heard and disposed of together having regard to the common issue involved.

2. The facts briefly stated are, the petitioner is common in these petitions. He has lodged a complaint against Respondents 2 and 3 for an offence punishable under Section 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for brevity) and for an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Casts and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SC.ST Act’ for brevity) and a case has been registered by the Shahapur Police who have4 submitted a First Information Report to the Jurisdictional Court and a case is registered in Crime No.43/2011. The accused had voluntarily surrendered before the Court and had sought for bail. The Court of Sessions Judge has granted bail imposing certain terms and conditions and a charge-sheet had been submitted for the offences punishable under the aforesaid sections and summons had been issued to the accused. It is alleged that the respondents again threatened the petitioner and sought to influence him with regard to the pending case and therefore, violated the bail conditions, imposed by the Sessions Court and hence, he was constrained to make an application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’ for brevity). The petitioner is also said to have made an application under Section 24(8) of the Cr.P.C. seeking permission to engage counsel to represent him in the prosecution of the main case, registered as Special Case No.110/2011. The Court below has allowed the application, in part. In that, the Court below has held that the counsel appointed by the complainant could assist the Public Prosecutor to the extent of submitting written arguments after the evidence of the prosecution is closed. It is this which is sought to be questioned in the present petitions. The second of these petitions I also filed under similar circumstances. The petitioner is primarily aggrieved by the impugned order whereby the role of the counsel engaged by him is limited to the extent of filing written arguments after the evidence of the prosecution is closed and that the counsel has not been given a free hand in conducting the trial which the petitioner seeks.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the court below has failed to take into account the scope of Section 24(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code which has now been amended by the insertion of a proviso, as per Act 5/2009 with effect from 31.12.2009. The learned counsel would seek to draw attention to the State of Objects and Reasons, to the said Amendment Act and the very object of the amendment is lost, if a narrow interpretation is given to the scope of the “assistance” that may be provided by the counsel engaged by the victim. The court below having thought it fit to hold that the engagement of counsel of the choice of the complainant is circumscribed by the limitation as to the prosecution of any crime being by the State and that the prosecution shall be conducted only by the Public Prosecutor and the participation of a counsel engaged by the complainant could not overstep the role assigned to the Public Prosecutor and that the counsel so engaged can only assist the Public Prosecutor and that too, only to the extent of filing written arguments after the evidence of the prosecution is closed. The learned counsel would submit that the court below, going by the tenor of Section 225 of Cr.P.C., has failed to take into account the scope of the Section read with Section 301 and Section 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereby it is sought to be canvassed that it is not impermissible for the counsel engaged by the complainant to have a greater role in the conduct of the cases. In this regard, reliance is sought to be placed on a decision of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in the