JUDGMENT:

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed questioning the docket order dated 21.12.2020 in S.C.No.39/2014, which reads as follows:

“A4 is present. The presence of other accused is dispensed with on petition. Complainant is absent.

During the course of hearing it is noticed that this case is emanated on a protest petition filed under Section 202 Cr.P.C., challenging the final report filed by the concerned Asst. Superintendent of Police, Bhadrachalam and cognizance was taken on such protest petition and entire prosecution is conducted by a private counsel contrary to provisions of Section 15 of the SCs/STs (POA) Act and also section 225 Cr.P.C and also settled pronouncement of the Apex Court in Rekha Muraka v. State of West Bengal and another (Criminal Appeal No.1727 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7848 of 2019, dated 20.11.2019.

Therefore, the Prosecution is required to be conducted by the Spl. Public Prosecutor and the private counsel can only assist the Spl.Public Prosecutor in view of Section 15 of the SCs/STs (POA) Act and also Section 225 of Cr.P.C.

In view of the above legal position, this Court feels it just and expedient to direct the Spl. Public Prosecutor to appear and conduct prosecution of this case as ‘State Case’ and the counsel for the complainant is entitled to assist the Spl. Public Prosecutor, if he so desires.

The Counsel for the accused has objected to conduct de novo trial but that objection cannot now be countenanced and it will be considered at appropriate state after framing of charges after hearing the Spl. Public Prosecutor and defence counsel as the case.

For hearing on charges, call on 05.01.2021.”

2. The core question which arises for consideration is whether in the present circumstances, the Court can conduct de novo trial.

3. On the basis of complaint of the 1st respondent that the petitioners/accused trespassed into her premises and abused her in the name of her caste, the said complaint was investigated. During the course of investigation, it was found that no such incident as alleged by the complainant had taken place, for which reason, case was referred as ‘false’.

4. Before filing the case as false, the police had taken the opinion of the Special Public Prosecutor for SCs/STs cases, Khammam and thereafter the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Warangal has accorded permission for referring the case as ‘false’.

5. Protest petition was filed by the 1st respondent and the learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offence. The witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined in between 30.05.2019 to 25.06.2019. The witnesses were extensively cross-examined and after Section 313 Cr.P.C, the case was posted for arguments. On 10.10.2019, the arguments of both sides were heard and posted to 22.10.2019 for Judgment. It appears that there was a change in the Presiding Officer and during the course of hearing, found that trial was conducted by a private lawyer and accordingly, passed the impugned docket order dated 21.12.2020.

6. The case was initially registered on 13.11.2011 for the incident that allegedly happened on 11.10.2011. The final report was filed on 22.01.2013 and protest petition came to be filed on 21.02.2013. Thereafter, cognizance was taken on 07.06.2014.

7. Learned Sessions Judge, relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rekha Muraka v. State of West Bengal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

“12.4 In this regard, given that the modalities of each case are different, we find that the extent of assistance and the manner of giving it would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Though we cannot detail and discuss all possible scenarios that may arise during a criminal prosecution, we find that a victim’s counsel should ordinarily not be given the right to make oral arguments or examine and cross-examine witnesses. As stated in, the private party’s pleader is subject to the directions of the Public Prosecutor. In our considered opinion, the s