Independent Prosecution By De Facto Complainant Not Permissible In Sessions Case: SC Sets Aside HC Order Accepting HC’s Plea [Read Order]

The Supreme Court has set aside an order of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh that allowed a de facto complainant to conduct the prosecution independently, by engaging an advocate.The special leave petition was filed by the high court on its administrative side, assailing an order of the high court, on the judicial side, to the extent that. The special leave petition was filed by the high court on its administrative side, assailing an order of the high court, on the judicial side, to the extent that it holds that the even in a sessions case, a victim can be permitted to conduct prosecution, either independently or in addition to the Public Prosecutor, by putting up further questions in evidence during trial or in any enquiry or other proceedings, including in any application to file counters or objections and participate, in view of the proviso to Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, despite the provisions of Section 225 of CrPC. The impugned judgment is accordingly set aside in light of the aforementioned decisions.” HC observations The high court administration had assailed the following observations of Justice B Siva Sankara Rao while allowing a petition filed by Mahabunnisa Begum: “The proviso to section 24 of the amended Act No.5 of 2009 of Cr.P.C seeks that the Court may permit the victim to engage an advocate of his or her choice to assist the prosecution. Needless to say any permitting of putting of questions and eliciting of answers will be within the scope of law and power of the Court including on relevancy and admissibility within the scope of Section 136 of Indian evidence Act in particular and on proof with reference to other provisions, including from the availability of the power under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act.” High Court Contentions in SLP The high court contended that, in Shiv Kumar v. Hukam Chand and Anr, the apex court made it manifestly clear that prosecution in a sessions court cannot be conducted by anyone other than the Public Prosecutor.