JUDGMENT B.A. Zaidi, J.
1. In a Sessions Trial No. 233 of 2005 (State v. Anil Kumar) under Section 307 I.P.C. pending before Additional Sessions Judge Vth, Saharanpur, Investigation of which was conducted by S.S.I. Mukesh, Kuma, pairokar Police Station Sarsawa district Saharanpur informed the court during the trial that Investigation Officer of the case cannot be found. The prosecution, therefore, prayed before the court to produce secondary evidence to prove the memo of recovery and 'Palkati' recovered by Investigation Officer Mukesh Kumar at the instance of accused Anil, which the court allowed.
2. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that S.S.I Mukesh Kumar was posted in Police Lines, Rampur, he applied before the trial court under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning S.S.I. Mukesh Kumar in evidence, so that Palkati may be proved in evidence, which the trial court declined by order dated 20.12.2007.
That is what brings the complainant here under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
3. Heard Sri Vikrant Pandey, Advocate for the applicant arid Sri Mohammad Israil Siddiqui, Addl. Government Advocate for the State.
4. Before considering merits of the contentions, raised by the counsel for the applicant, it must be noticed that the complainant had no right under law to file application of this nature before the court and it is only the Public Prosecutor, who can do so. The role of the counsel for the complainant in the State sponsored case is limited to provide assistant to Public Prosecutor and to give suggestions. He cannot join the fray and, come to forefront pushing aside the Public Prosecutor. It is settled law that in a State case, it is the Public Prosecutor, who has to conduct the case and complainant's lawyer has only a secondary and subservient role. The application by the complainant is, therefore not maintainable. The Presiding Officer should have rejected the application on this ground alone, but this view point, was completely ignored, by the Presiding Officer.
5. Even on merits, the grouse of the complainant is devoid of substance, because the 'Palkati', the alleged weapon of offence, has been displayed in the court and has been proved by P.W. 3. The secondary evidence has already been led by producing P.W. 8 and there seems no reason for delaying the case by calling the Investigation Officer.
6. it has also not been indicated in the application what points are to be clarified from the Investigation Officer, and what questions are to be asked, from him.
In the circumstances, the non-examination of the Investigation Officer will not injure tile prosecution case, and apprehension of the complainant, are unfounded.
Application rejected.