The court has the inherent power to ensure that justice is done and to prevent the abuse of the process of the court. This power can be exercised to order the cross-examination of defence witnesses by the complainant's counsel, even if the Public Prosecutor has failed to do so.

1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, the Code) against the order dated 3rd May, 1995, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot, which reads as under:"Two D.Ws have been examined, District Attorney has not cross-examined them. An application has been filed on behalf of complainant to cross examine the defence Witnesses. Counsel for complainant is only to assist the public Prosecutor. Hence this application is declined.

2. Briefly stated that facts of the case are that a case was registered against respondents 2 and 3 under Section 302 IPC vide FIR No. 43 dated 16th May, 1993. The said case is being tied by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot. On 3rd May, 1995, Shri Gurmail Singh, DSP, Special Branch, appeared as a defence witness and stated that as per his inquiry, he found that accused Sukhwinder Singh (respondent No. 3) was not present in his clinic on the 15th May, 1993 and that his plea of alibi was correct. On the same date, another defence witness Dr. Balwinder Singh, brother of the said accused was also examined and he also gave a statement in favour of said Dr. Sukhwinder Singh. It has been alleged in the petition and that the Public Prosecutor did not cross-examine these witnesses at all though opportunity to cross examine these witnesses was given by the court. In view of this, the application was filed on behalf of the complainant to cross-examine the aforesaid two defence witnesses and the same was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge vide order, dated 3rd May, 1995.

3. Mr. Jasbir Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the etitioner/complainant submitted that the statements given by the above mentioned two witnesses go to the root of the matter but the Public Prosecutor did not put a single question in cross-examination of these witnesses and thus he has not performed his duty properly and in such a case, the learned counsel for the complainant ought to have been given an opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses in the interest of justice. In support of his statement, the learned counsel placed reliance on a judgement of this court in the case Roop K. Shorey, Film Producer, Bombay V/s. The State. AIR 1967 Pun 42.

4. Mr. Merchea, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, Sukhwinder Singh, however, submitted that a counsel engaged by a private party cannot be permitted to plead and act independently though he can assist the prosecution in conducting the trial and with the permission of the Court, can submit written arguments. He, therefore, contended that the petition being without any merit should be dismissed. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on the following judgements :-

(i) Subbulaksmi V/s. State (Inspector of Police, Dowry Cell, Crime Branch, Egmore, Madras) and others, 1993 (1) An L.T. (Cr.) 33 :(ii) Manhar Lal I. Shah V/s. Yogeshkumar Kanaiyalal Saraia, 1987 (2) RCR 279; and(iii) In Re : Rakhan Ojha alias Rakhal Chander Ojha 1988 Cr. LJ 278 (Cal).

5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. In terms of Section 301 (2) of the Code, a pleader engaged by a private party cannot plead though he can act and that too under the directions of the Public Prosecutor. In view of this, normally, a counsel representing the complainant party cannot conduct the prosecution and he can only assist the Public Prosecutor in prosecuting the case and file written arguments at the end of the arguments with the permission of the Court. But in the present case, the Public Prosecutor appears to have abdicated his functions by not putting any question to the defence witnesses in cross-examination though the statement of the said witnesses in material. In the case Partap V/s. State of U.P., AIR 1973 SC 786 it was held by the Supreme Court as follows :"The power under Section 439 Cr. P.C. (of the old Code Section