1. This Criminal Revision case comes before us on a reference made by our learned brother Muktadar, J. The question that arises for consideration is whether the respondent No. 1, who was appointed as Asstt. Police Prosecuting Officer and was then conducting C. C. No. 437/78 on the file of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, is competent to conduct the prosecution. It is the contention of the petitioners that the 1st respondent is the Assistant Police Prosecuting Officer who was appointed by the Inspector - General of Police in the year 1956 and is a 'Police Officer.' Having regard to S. 25 of the CrPC, 1973 (Act II of 1974), only the State Government is competent to appoint an Assistant Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecutions in the Courts of Magistrates. However, the State Government, except as provided in sub-clause (3) of S. 25 cannot appoint a Police Officer as an Assistant Public Prosecutor. The petitioner's objection that the 1st respondent cannot conduct the prosecution was upheld by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by his order dated 29-9-1978. On a revision by the 1st respondent, the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, by his order dated 26-12-1978 reverse