Judgment · High Court · 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.52 OF 2012 Mr.Amit Shamsunder Hora. …Petitioner. versus

#1. Rajeev Raman Gangwani & Ors. ...Respondents --- Mr.Rohan Nahar i/b. Mr.Tejas Dande, for Petitioner. Mrs.A.A.Mane, APP for State. --- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 29th August, 2012 P.C. : Heard the learned Counsel for the original complainant. The request to engage Advocate of his choice in a prosecution initiated in RCC no.613 of 2007 before the learned J.M.F.C., Pune, was rejected on

10.11.2010. Thereafter, the matter was carried before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The revision was also rejected on 18.1.2011.

#2. The learned Counsel has invited my attention to the judgment in the matter of “M/s.J.K.International, Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Pvr wp52-12.sxw (AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1142), wherein the Lordships were dealing with the situation of exercise of powers relating to Sections 301, 302 of Cr.P.C. In paragraphs 11 and 12, after explaining the scheme of the Statute, the Honourable Lordships have observed in paragraph 12, “a person who is permitted to conduct prosecution in Magistrate's Court can engage a counsel to do the needful in the Court in his behalf.” It further amplifies the position that if a private person is aggrieved by the offence committed against him or against any one in whom he is interested he can approach the Magistrate and seek permission to conduct the prosecution by himself.

#3. In the fact situation, the request by the petitioner-complainant to engage Counsel of his choice to represent his case is allowed in terms of Section 302(2) of Cr.P.C. The petition is allowed to that extent. (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)