JUDGMENT :

Mir Alfaz Ali, J.

1. We have heard Mr. S.K. Deori, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. NNB Choudhury, learned P.P. and Addl. A.G. for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

2. The question sought to be answered by this order is whether the informant must be served with a notice before proceeding with the hearing of an appeal preferred by the accused against the judgment of conviction.

3. The facts giving rise to the above mentioned question are that the appellant preferred an appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the learned Sessions Judge. The informant of the case was impleaded as party respondent and notice was issued to him. However, despite all effort, the notice could not be served on the informant/respondent. Because after lodging the FIR, he had left the place of his residence in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, for Dadra and Nagar Haveli and did not return, and as such, where about of the informant could not be traced out.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit, that there was no statutory requirement for impleadment and issuance of notice to the informant. However, the informant was impleaded as a party respondent and notice was issued to him in view of the direction of this Court in Crl. Appeal No. 22/2012, and the consequent amendment made in the Gauhati High Court Rules, requiring impleadment of the informant as party respondent. A learned Single Judge of this Court held in Crl. Appeal No. 22/2012 that "in view of insertion of the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, it would be just and proper to amend the Chapter XI of the Gauhati High Court Rules to make obligatory for the appellant/petitioners to implead the informants/complainants/victim and accused persons as the case may be, while filing appeals under Sections 374/378 of the CrPC or revision petition under Section 397/401 or criminal petition under Section 482 of the CrPC". Learned Single Judge also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Raghu Raj Singh Rousha Vs. Shivam Sundaram Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., reported in (2009) 2 SCC 363.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor submits referring to Section 225 of the CrPC, that prosecution in Sessions Case shall be conducted only by the Public Prosecutor and involvement of the informant or any other private person in a sessions trial is very minimal. It is also submitted referring to Section 301 of the CrPC that even if a private party instructs a lawyer to prosecute any person in any court, such lawyer engaged or instructed by a private person may act, only under the direction and supervision of the Public Prosecutor or Asstt. Public Prosecutor in charge of the case and may with the permission of the court, submit written argument after the evidence is closed. Learned P.P. also referred to the proviso to Section 24(8) of the CrPC, to submit, that even a victim is required to take permission of the court to engage an advocate of his choice to assist the Public Prosecutor. Therefore, the participatory rule of the informant or any private person including the victim in a sessions case is circumscribed, and as such, the informant or any other private person does not have an absolute or independent right to be impleaded as a party or served with a notice in respect of an appeal filed by the accused against a judgment of conviction rendered by the court of sessions, submits Mr. Choudhury. The learned Public Prosecutor further contended, that if the informant or any other private person, including the victim, engages a counsel to assist the public prosecutor during the trial, and submits written argument as per section 301(2) CrPC with the permission of the court, then only, the informant or any other private person participating in the trial with the permission of the court, may be heard in an appeal against the conviction filed by the accused. It is also submitted that Rule 1 (A) of the Criminal Rules and Order (Chapter-II) does not provide for issuance of notice to the inf