Can a victim be allowed to conduct prosecution independently? SC to answer

Can a victim, under the proviso to Section 24(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), be permitted to conduct prosecution either independently or in addition to the public prosecutor by putting further questions in evidence during trial or other proceedings?.The Supreme Court will decide this interesting question, after a Bench of Justices Jasti Chelameswar and UU Lalit today issued notice to the Attorney General in an appeal filed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad against its own judgment..The proviso to Section 24 (8) of the CrPC states that,.“…the Court may permit the victim to engage an advocate of his choice to assist the prosecution.”.The victim Mahabunnisa Begum had filed a Criminal Miscellaneous petition before the Magistrate under Section 302 read with 24(8) of CrPC, to permit her to prosecute through a private advocate. The accused persons opposed the same. The Magistrate then dismissed Begum’s petition on the ground that the proviso to Section 24(8) is applicable to High Court and District Courts, but not to Magistrate courts..In a challenge to the order of the Magistrate, the High Court had ruled in favour of the victim/complainant, holding that a victim can be allowed under proviso to Section 24 (8) to conduct prosecution either independently or in addition to the public prosecutor by putting further questions in evidence during trial or in any enquiry or other proceedings..In arriving at the said conclusion, the High Court gave its interpretation the word “assist” in the said proviso, holding,.“Thus the word prosecution thereby means proceeding either by way of indictment or information in criminal Courts to put the offender upon trial. The proviso to section 24(8) 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. .Here to assist the prosecution does not mean mere assisting the Public Prosecutor under Section 301 Cr.P.C., but for conducting the prosecution itself by the victim or defacto complainant in person or through private advocate of his or her choice either under Section 24(8) proviso or under Section 302 Cr.P.C. as the case may be, but for to clarify further that irrespective of what is stated in Sections 225 & 226 Cr.P.C., even in a Sessions case, a victim can be permitted under Section 24(8) proviso of Cr.P.C. to conduct prosecution either independently or in addition to the public prosecutor by putting 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 doing so, the High Court also placed reliance on its decision Delta Car Private Limited v. Sanjeev Shah and held that the trial courts should also allow the victim to exercise this right, in view of the fact that there are no adequate prosecutors..“It is in fact therefrom held by this Court in Delta Car case supra that defacto complainant and victim respectively are entitled to conduct prosecution and participate in the proceeding including either personally or by engaging advocate of his/her choice..It is also the need of the hour for the trial Courts to exercise the power, that too when APPs or Additional PPs or PPs not sufficiently available for each one to each Court so that the trial process cannot be delayed thereby and also for one APP may not concentrate effectively by attending regularly cases in more than one Court that too their duties are not only to conduct prosecution but also to represent in bail applications, policy custody petitions and several other pre-trial proceedings during investigation of the cases.” .It, therefore, proceeded to allow the petition..The High Court, on its administrative side, has now challenged this decision in the Supreme Court..In its petition, the High Court has placed reliance on Supreme Court judgments in Shiv Kumar v. Hukam Chand and Anr and Dhariwal Industries Ltd. vs. Kishore Wadhwani and Ors. to contend that the decision of the High Court is not in consonance with Section 225 of CrPC..When the matter came up for hearing today, the Bench asked advocate Anitha Shenoy, who was appearing for the High Court, why a victim should be deprived of the services of an advocate of his/her choice..“Why should a victim be deprived of the benefit of a competent counsel? We all know the quality of prosecutors and investigation”, Justice Chelameswar asked..Shenoy replied that the proviso to Section 24(8) does not allow the victim to conduct the prosecution independently, but only makes provision for assisting the prosecution..“In sessions case, there is restriction. Victim can only assist the prosecution”, Shenoy said..The Court proceeded to issue notice to the respondents, while also seeking the assistance of the Attorney General..Read the petition and order below.