( 1 ) 0rule. Mr. S. J. Dave, Ld. APP waives service of Rule. By consent of learned advocates for the parties, this application is being heard and disposed of finally.

( 2 ) THIS is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short "code") for quashing and setting aside the order passed on 7. 11. 2000 by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 13 at Ahmedabad in connection with Sessions Case No. 178/1986 and also for a relief for cancelling the said order in toto.

( 3 ) IT appears from the record that the aforesaid case No. 178/86 is pending before the City Sessions Court at Ahmedabad against respondent nos. 1 to 9 hereinabove. It relates to the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 326, 333, 148, 149, 152, 153, 506, 186, 188, read with Section 120-B and 34 of IPC and also under Section 135 (1) of the Bombay Police Act.

( 4 ) THE petitioner has contended that the aforesaid case is pending before the aforesaid Court on the allegation that one police Head Constable on duty was murdered and one Home Guard on duty was attacked with Dhariya with an intention to kill him but the said person was saved and therefore, the aforesaid offence was registered and ultimately, the case was committed to the Sessions court and is pending there as aforesaid.

( 5 ) THE petitioner has contended that the present petitioner had applied before the City Sessions Court at Ahmedabad to permit him to appear as a third party (party in person in the proceedings) to assist the court as and when necessity arises.

( 6 ) THE petitioner has contended that respondent no. 1 was a Cabinet minister in the State and respondent no. 4 was a Dy. Minister in Union Cabinet. Same way, respondent no. 3 is the brother of a State Minister and therefore, the State Government and Central Government are likely to favour the respondents. It is alleged that all the opponents are also having high influence in the State Government as well as in the Central Government as Constitutional functionaries and therefore, there are possibilities and chances that they may influence the Home Department of the Gujarat State for getting their proceedings withdrawn. It is further alleged that as the post of Public Prosecutor (for short "pp") is also a political appointment, a possibility also cannot be ruled out that the Public Prosecutor may also be influenced politically to help the contesting respondent Nos. 1 to 9.

( 7 ) THE aforesaid set of averments and allegations were made before the learned Addl. Session Judge in the aforesaid sessions case and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties, dismissed the said application.

( 8 ) FEELING aggrieved by the said order of the trial Court, the petitioner has preferred this application before this Court under Section 482 of the Code.

( 9 ) IT has again been contended that the contesting respondents nos. 1 to 9 are influencial persons and therefore, fair trial may not be possible and therefore, in the interest of justice, the present petitioner appearing party in person, who is a practising advocate, be permitted to be added as a party in the said proceedings and take part in the proceedings as and when necessity arises.

( 10 ) I have heard learned advocates for the parties and have perused the papers. The petitioner - Mr. B. M. Gupta, a practicing advocate - party in person argued for himself, Mr. S. B. Vakil appeared for respondent Nos. 1 to 9 and argued the matter on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 9. Mr. S. J. Dave, Ld. APP appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 10 - State of Gujarat. Learned advocate for respondents and learned APP Mr. S. J. Dave, for the State have strongly opposed this application.

( 11 ) IT may be noted that the following facts are not in dispute :- (i) The aforesaid sessions case is pending before the learned Addl. City Sessions Judge at Ahmedabad. (ii) The State is being represented by a Public Prosecutor before the Sessions Court. (iii) The pe