JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The present revision is against an order dated 26th September, 2019 passed by the Learned Additional Session Judge, 1st Court Islampur in Criminal Revision 04/2018 thereby affirming the order dated 29.01.2018 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Islampur, Uttar Dinajpur, in permitting the defacto complainant to assist the Learned APP to Conduct prosecution on a prayer under Section 302 Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioner’s case is that she being the defacto complainant in a proceeding initiated in 2011, being G.R. Case No. 2450/2011 under Section 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the opposite parties made an application under Section 302 of the Cr.P.C. praying for conducting the prosecution by her own Advocate.

3. It was noticed by the petitioner in the course of hearing of the said case that repeated adjournments were prayed for by the accused persons on flimsy grounds which were allowed without any opposition from the Learned Advocate for the prosecution (APP).

4. The copies of the petitions filed by the accused persons before the Learned Trial Court on many occasions were also not shown or supplied to the petitioner by the Learned Advocate for the prosecution.

5. It is also noticed that the Leaned prosecutor has deflected attempts made by the petitioner to assist him with factual details in the conduct of the proceeding.

6. The copies of the charge sheet and the supporting documents were not supplied to the petitioner by the Learned Prosecution. As such, the petitioner remained in dark regarding the investigations that has been carried out by the state.

7. In such backdrop, the petitioner has lost all faith in the conduct of the proceedings by the Learned Prosecutor.

8. The said application was made by the petitioner on losing faith in learned Prosecutor conducting the prosecution case.

9. The said application was heard and wrongly rejected by the Learned Magistrate by the Judgment and order dated January 29, 2018.

10. In the said order of rejection of the said application under Section 302 of the code, it has been recorded that the Learned Advocate of the petitioner had consented to limit his involvement in the conduct of the trial to rendering assistance to the Learned Advocate for the prosecution. It was on the basis of such consent, the said order dated January 29, 2018 was passed.

11. However, it is submitted that such consent as expressed by the Learned Advocate of the Petitioner, was not done under the instructions of the petitioner.

12. The petition under Section 302 of the Cr.P.C. with the prayers as made therein refers to the lack of consent of the petitioner in relying on the Learned Prosecutor to conduct the trial of the said case.

13. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Learned Sessions Judge by an application under sections 397 read with Section 399 of the Cr.P.C.

14. The said revisional application has finally been dismissed by the Learned Session Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated September 29, 2019.

15. Hence the revision.

16. Mr. Subir Banerjee, Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned judgment and order is bad in law and on facts.

17. The Learned Judge has erred in law in failing to exercise the authority vested in him in holding that the Learned Advocate appointed by the petitioner can only permitted to assist the Learned Public Prosecutor in the prosecution.

18. The Learned Judge has erred in law in failing to exercise the authority vested in him in holding that the Advocate appointed by the petitioner cannot be allowed to conduct the prosecution case and not allowing the petitioner to conduct her case through a lawyer privately appointed by her.

19. The Learned Judge has failed to appreciate the import of Section 302 of the Cr.P.C. and has held that the said provision only allows an advocate on behalf of the defacto complainant to assist the Public Prosecutor in the conduct of the prosecution case.

20. The Learned Judg