Private individuals cannot conduct oral arguments or cross-examine witnesses in a Sessions trial under BNSS.

In July 2025, the petitioner, an elected councillor, and others submitted a representation to the District Collector alleging financial irregularities and corruption in road construction by the Municipal Council, Shivpuri.

Following an inquiry by the SDM, an FIR was registered against a contractor and municipal engineers under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

At the stage of framing charges, the petitioner filed an application (I.A. No. 2/2026) under Section 338(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), seeking permission to assist the prosecution.

The Special Court rejected the application on February 10, 2026, on the grounds that the petitioner did not qualify as a "victim".

The petitioner challenged this order via the present revision.

Section 248 of the BNSS, which mandates that a Public Prosecutor must conduct every trial before a Court of Session.

Section 338(2) of the BNSS, which stipulates that while a private person may instruct an advocate, such advocate must act under the directions of the Public Prosecutor and can only submit written arguments after the evidence is closed, with the court's permission.

The principle established in Rekha Murarka v. The State of West Bengal, (2020) 2 SCC 474, which limits the role of a victim’s counsel to ensure the Public Prosecutor retains control over the proceedings.

The court reasoned that the statutory language of Sections 248 and 338(2) of the BNSS is unambiguous: the Public Prosecutor is entrusted with the primary responsibility of conducting the case.

The role of an advocate engaged by a private party is strictly supplementary and restricted to assisting the Public Prosecutor.

The court observed that the law does not permit a private advocate to make oral arguments or cross-examine witnesses; their participation is limited to filing written arguments only after the conclusion of evidence.

Since the petitioner sought to intervene at the preliminary stage of framing charges, the court found his application premature and legally unsustainable under the BNSS framework.

The court distinguished the precedents cited by the petitioner regarding bail cancellation, noting they were inapplicable to the conduct of a sessions trial.

The court concluded there was no illegality or perversity in the impugned order as the BNSS does not permit the requested level of private intervention at the charge-framing stage.

The criminal revision was dismissed.