section 319 CrPC before cross- examination of other witnesses. 18. In the present case, we find that the Trial Court having tried its best to ensure that the prosecution witnesses nos.1, 2 and 3 present themselves for cross-examination and thereafter it would decide the application under section 319 CrPC, the prosecution witnesses repeatedly continued to either absent themselves or file adjournment applications and only insisted for deciding the application under section 319 CrPC first and only thereafter the trial could proceed. The complainant has no such mandatory right to SLP(Crl.) No.12292 of 2022 Page 12 of 14insist that an application be decided in such a manner. Even the Public Prosecutor had not supported the complainant’s counsel in filing of the application under section 319 CrPC. 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