- (1.) D. C. Srivastava, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THE petition is being disposed of finally at this stage. The prayer in this petition is that Sessions Trial No. 82 of 1989, State versus Irfan and others pending in the court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Saharanpour be transferred ;o some other court in the same sessions division. Transfer application was also moved before the District & Sessions Judge, Saharanpur which was rejected on 6-12-96 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition. The order shows that prosecution as well as defence had closed evidence and the argu ments of two sides were heard much earlier. On the inquest from the side of the com plainant for adjournment, the Presiding Of ficer granted indulgence and allowed one day's adjournment to the complainant for argument and fixed 5-12-1996 for addition al arguments. Again application for ad journment was moved on 5-12-1996 which was allowed and the case was adjourned to 6-12-1996. The question is whether the com plainant has a right of independent argu ments through a counsel in the Sessions Trial. Section 234 Cr. P. C. provides for argu ments. It says that when the examination of the witnesses, any, for the defence is complete, the prosecutor shall sum up his case and the accused or his pleader shall be en titled to reply.
(3.) IT is, therefore, clear from plain read ing of this Section that the statute conferred right of argument only on the prosecutor and not on the complainant counsel. If the complainant choose to engage a counsel such counsel may assist the prosecutor. The Counsel for the complainant cannot insist that independent hearing may be given in the matter of arguments. In view of this legal proposition, the request of the counsel for the complainant was liable to turn down, still the presiding officer granted indul gence in the matter of arguments concluded much earlier. There is no merit in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;