COMMON ORDER

Challenge in these Criminal Revisions are made to the orders dated 23.06.2023 passed in Crl.M.P. Nos. 6495, 6497 and 6498 of 2023 in CC 3650, 3639 and 3651 of 2022, respectively by the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

2. The revision petitioner is the defacto complainant in C.C.3639, 3650, and 3651 of 2022, on the file of the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. He filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions in Crl. M.P. Nos. 6495, 6497 and 6498 of 2023 in the aforesaid Calendar Cases under Section 24(8) Cr.P.C. to permit him to conduct the prosecution through a counsel of his choice. 3. The main grievance of the revision petitioner is that the police have not investigated the case properly and that they have filed a final report on flimsy grounds in collusion with the accused. His further contention is that his statement was not at all recorded by the police and therefore, he must be allowed to engage a counsel of his own choice under Section 24(8) Cr.P.C., to conduct prosecution.

4. The learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, dismissed the said petitions on the ground that there is an Assistant Public Prosecutor appointed by the State Government to represent the State in all the cases and that when there is no specific allegation against the concerned Public Prosecutor, the petitioner cannot be permitted to engage a counsel of his choice to conduct prosecution. However, the petitioner was given liberty to engage a counsel to assist the prosecution. Aggrieved over the same, the present Criminal Revision Cases are filed by the complainant.

5. Mr. S.Y.Eswaran, the revision petitioner (party in person)

contended that the findings of the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, are perverse since the statutory right given under Section 24(8) Cr.P.C. to the victim cannot be restricted by assisting the Public Prosecutor. The right given to the victim in Criminal cases under Section 24(8) Cr.P.C. is a statutory right and letting additional evidence by the defacto complainant cannot be curtailed by Public Prosecutor. His further contention is that when the defacto complainant wanted to examine certain witnesses on his side, the trial court disallowed the said petition on the ground that the Public Prosecutor objected for examination of those witnesses.

5.1. He relied on the decision in Khumukcham Nikita Devi vs.

State of Manipur reported in 2018 CRI LJ 1557 and contended that Section 24(8) Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to permit a victim to engage a counsel of his choice to assist the prosecution and once the permission is accorded to the Advocate of the victim to assist the prosecution, his assistance could not be restricted to the terminology of Section 301 Cr.P.C, i.e., only to assist the prosecutor. According to him, the court can permit the Advocate so engaged by the victim to advance his arguments apart from submitting his written arguments.

5.2. The revision petitioner also relied on the decision of the Telangana High Court in Gude Bhavani Sujatha vs. Muggulla Srinivasa Rao and another (in Crl.P.No.5674/15) and contended that the trial court gravely erred in not considering the scope of amended proviso to Section 24(8) Cr.P.C. which came into force with effect from 31.12.2009, under which the defacto complainant/victim can engage a counsel of his choice to assist the prosecution and the dismissal of the said application is unsustainable.

5.3. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of Andhra High Court in Mahabunnisa Begum vs. The State of Telangana and 2 others (CrlP. No.7108/2017 decided on 25.10.2017), by the revision petitioner and his contention is that the victim can be permitted under proviso to Section 24(8) Cr.P.C to conduct prosecution either independently or in addition to public prosecutor by putting further questions to witnesses during trial or in any enquiry or other proceedings including filing of an application, counters or objections