Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Deepak Gupta

JUDGMENT

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of judgment dated 29.07.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in revisional application C.R.R. No. 2357 of 2018, affirming the order dated 25.07.2018 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Calcutta rejecting an application filed by the Appellant herein, the de facto Complainant in Sessions Case No. 43 of 2014.

3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:

3.1 The Appellant herein is the widow of one Gyan Prakash Murarka ("the deceased"), who is alleged to have been stabbed and murdered by Respondent No. 2 herein on 16.01.2014. The Appellant is also said to have sustained serious injuries while trying to save her husband. Bowbazar Police Station Case No. 19 of 2014 came to be registered against Respondent No. 2 and on 18.12.2015, charges was framed against him for the commission of offences punishable Under Sections 302 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Respondent No. 2 pleaded not guilty and the trial began before the Sessions Court.

3.2 While the evidence was being recorded, the Appellant sought an expeditious trial of the case vide C.R.R. No. 833 of 2016, which was allowed on 09.03.2016. Subsequently, on 10.07.2018, she filed another application Under Section 301 read with the proviso to Section 24(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the CrPC") praying for the following reliefs:

(a) to advance oral argument in support of question of law and fact only after the learned Public Prosecutor, if so required;

(b) to raise objection in case any irrelevant question is put to any prosecution witness, if so required;

(c) to examine the prosecution witnesses only after the learned Public Prosecutor, if so required;

(d) to cross-examine the defence witnesses, if adduced, only after the learned Public Prosecutor, if so required;

(e) to assist the process of justice in accordance with law;

(f) pass such further or other order(s) and/or direction(s) as it may deem fit and proper.

3.3 Vide order dated 25.07.2018, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Calcutta rejected the said prayer. This was done on the basis that the right of a victim or private individual to participate in the prosecution of a Sessions trial is restricted, and the prosecution is subject to the control of the Public Prosecutor. It was observed that Section 301 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not have an overriding effect over Section 225, which mandates that the prosecution be conducted by the Public Prosecutor