The role of the complainant in a trial does not permit it to act as a Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. The complainant and its counsel have a limited role in a sessions trial in a State case. The High Court failed to take into consideration all these aspects. Why the prosecution witnesses were shying from facing the cross-examination is not understood. Their only insistence was that the parents of the accused should be summoned and dragged into the trial and to somehow or the other keep the trial pending. 19. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the Trial Court was correct in proceeding under section 232 CrPC and accordingly acquitting the appellant- accused, treating it to be a case of no evidence. The Trial court was also correct in rejecting the application under section 319 CrPC for want of admissible evidence on part of the prosecution. SLP(Crl.) No.12292 of 2022 Page 13 of 1420. For all the reasons recorded above, the appeal is