The Court permitted the de facto complainant's counsel to assist the Public Prosecutor after key witness recalls, emphasizing the importance of legal representation for a just adjudication.

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS ’) with a prayer to set aside the order dated 28.02.2025 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 196 of 2024 in Crl.M.P.No. 828 of 2024 in C.C.No. 18 of 2017 passed by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs and STs (POA) Act-

cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad.

2. I have heard Mr. Md. Nazeeruddin Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner/de facto complainant and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing respondent No.1-State.

3. The relevant facts, briefly stated are that, during the pendency of the proceedings in C.C. No. 18 of 2017, the de facto complainant filed a petition in Crl.M.P. No. 828 of 2024 under Section 301 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the CrPC’), seeking permission to engage an Advocate to assist the Public Prosecutor in contesting the matter. The trial Court, by order dated 18.09.2024, dismissed the petition on the ground that it was filed at the stage when the matter had already been posted for judgment and, therefore, had become infructuous. On revision, the learned Sessions Court affirmed the decision of the trial Court by passing the impugned order. Hence, the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/de facto complainant submits that, during the pendency of the revision, an application was filed for reopening the trial and recalling PW-1, a crucial witness. The matter is now posted for the examination of the recalled witness. In such circumstances, permitting the petitioner to engage an Advocate to assist the Public Prosecutor would aid the Court in ascertaining the truth and arriving at a just and fair conclusion.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the present petition challenges the impugned order, which was appropriately passed by the Courts below in the context of the circumstances prevailing at that time. However, considering the subsequent developments in the case, the Public Prosecutor prays that this Court may pass an appropriate order.

6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the materials on record.

7. Upon a careful perusal of the record, it is evident that the petition filed under Section 301 (2) of the CrPC, seeking permission to assist the prosecution, was initially presented at the stage of final arguments. In that context, the conclusion reached by the trial Court in dismissing the petition as infructuous appears to be legally justified.

8. However, it is equally pertinent to note that the petitioner has made an uncontroverted assertion that certain witnesses, including a key prosecution witness, were subsequently recalled for further examination. In light of this development, the petitioner’s request to assist the Public Prosecutor assumes relevance and significance. The assistance of the de facto complainant’s counsel, at this juncture, would not only aid the prosecution but would also facilitate the Court in arriving at a just and comprehensive adjudication of the matter. Under these circumstances, there appears to be no legal impediment to allowing such assistance.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/de facto complainant is permitted to assist the Public Prosecutor through duly engaged counsel in all further proceedings, including during the stage of final arguments.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.