JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ajit Prasad, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 and Mr. B.N.Ojha, the learned counsel for the respondent State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.7.2019 passed in Criminal Revision No.262 of 2019 passed by the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI, Ranchi.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing trial in connection with G.R.No.6592 of 2013 and pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, at Ranchi. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the witnesses were examined, however, subsequently the counsel of the informant has filed a petition under section 311 Cr.P.C before the learned court and the learned trial court by order dated 07.3.2019 has been pleased to reject the said petition which was challenged by the informant through his counsel in Criminal Revision No.262 of 2019. He submits that the learned revisional court has set aside the order of the learned trial court and directed the trial court to take evidence of the petitioner on record within three days. He submits that in light of section 301 Cr.P.C only the Public Prosecutors are allowed to conduct the proceedings and at any stage the private counsels for the informant are not allowed to conduct the proceedings as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rekha Murarka v. State of W.B., (2020) 2 SCC 474 and relied at paragraph nos.7 to 11 of the said judgment, which are quoted hereinbelow:

“7. In our criminal justice system, the Public Prosecutor occupies a position of great importance. Given that crimes are treated as a wrong against the society as a whole, his role in the administration of justice is crucial, as he is not just a representative of the aggrieved person, but that of the State at large. Though he is appointed by the Government, he is not a servant of the Government or the investigating agency. He is an officer of the court and his primary duty is to assist the court in arriving at the truth by putting forth all the relevant material on behalf of the prosecution. While discharging these duties, he must act in a manner that is fair to the court, to the investigating agencies, as well to the accused. This means that in instances where he finds material indicating that the accused legitimately deserves a benefit during the trial, he must not conceal it. The space carved out for the Public Prosecutor is clearly that of an independent officer who secures the cause of justice and fair play in a criminal trial.

8. In light of this exposition, we find it useful to advert to certain provisions of CrPC that highlight the role of a Public Prosecutor and the prerequisites for a person holding that office, most significant amongst which is Section 24:

“24. Public Prosecutors.—(1) For every High Court, the Central Government or the State Government shall, after consultation with the High Court, appoint a Public Prosecutor and may also appoint one or more Additional Public Prosecutors, for conducting in such Court, any prosecution, appeal or other proceeding on behalf of the Central Government or State Government, as the case may be.

***

(7) A person shall be eligible to be appointed as a Public Prosecutor or an Additional Public Prosecutor … only if he has been in practice as an advocate for not less than seven years.

(8) The Central Government or the State Government may appoint, for the purposes of any case or class of cases, a person who has been in practice as an advocate for not less than ten years as a Special Public Prosecutor:

Provided that the Court may permit the victim to engage an advocate of his choice to assist the prosecution under this subsection.”

(emphasis supplied)

Other important provisions are as follows:

“225. Trial to be conducted by Public Prosecutor.—In every trial before a Court of Session, the prosecution shall be conducted by a Public Prose