( 1 ) THIS petition is filed by the original informant whose sister Anita died in suspicions circumstances on 14-9-1985. She was married to Yogeshkumar respondent No. 1 about four months before the date of her death. She died at her husbands place and the information which was conveyed to the relatives of Anita and others was that she had committed suicide lay hanging. No post mortem examination was allowed to be performed. The petitioners case is that no proper action was taken by the local police; and therefore he moved the higher police authorities; and thereafter an offence came to be registered at Nadiad Town Police Station against respondents No. 1 to 5 for the offences punishable under secs. 306 498 201 176 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent No. 2 is the brother of respondent No. 1; and respondent No. 3 is his sister. Respondent No 4 is the mother of respondent No. J. Respondent No 5 is his maternal uncle.

( 2 ) AFTER completing the investigation the police charge-sheeted those accused in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class Nadiad. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Shri Jhala the learned Public Prosecutor is in charge of the prosecution. The petitioner has also engaged a lawyer to represent him and assist the learned Public Prosecutor in conducting the case.

( 3 ) AS the lawyer of the petitioner noticed that even though witnesses Vinodkumar Natwarlal Pushpaben and Kanaiyalal have referred to a note written by deceased Anita in their police statements the said note was not shown to these witness while they were examined in the Court and has not been produced before the Court. He also noticed that the said note is an important piece of evidence as it discloses how life of Anita had become miserable as a result of ill-treatment given by respondent No. 1 and his relatives. It is the case of the petitioner that his lawyer drew attention of the learned Public Persecutor 10 this lapse and requested him to do needful in the matter but the learned Public Prosecutor did not pay any heed and was not inclined to do anything in that behalf. Under these circumstances the petitioner gave application Exh. 25 on 25-6-1996 of questing the Court to direct the investigating officer to produce the said note before the Court so that it can be shown to the witnesses and brought on the record of the case. The learned Public Prosecutor objected to it; and therefore the petitioners lawyer gave another application Exh. 26 on that very day for permission to address the Court in support of the application Exh. 25. The learned Sessions Judge rejected that application; and therefore the petitioner has filed this petition challenging the said order passed below Exh. 26

( 4 ) IT was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the learned Sessions; Judge has not correctly interpreted sec. 301 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereafter referred to as the Code) and has erroneously rejected application Exh. 26. It was urged that the said section should be so interpreted as to confer a right on the complainant to represent his case before the Court. In support of his contention he first drew our attention to the definition of the term Public Prosecutor as contained in sec. 2 (u) of the Code. According to that definition Public Prosecutor means any person appointed under sec 24 and includes any person acting under the directions of a Public Prosecutor. It was urged that whereas for an appointment of a Public Prosecutor certain qualifications are laid down no such qualifications are prescribed with respect to the person who can act under the directions of a Public Prosecutor. Thus any person who acts under the directions of a Public Prosecutor will have to be regarded as a Public Prosecutor and can be incharge of that trial before the Sessions Court. If such a person can conduct a trial before the Sessions Court there is no reason why a lawyer engaged by a complainan