RANCHOD MATHUR WASAWA versus STATE OF GUJARAT on 15 October 1973

RANCHOD MA1HUR WASAWA

v.

STATE OF GUJARAT October 15, 1973.

[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND R. S. SARKARJA, JJ.]

Amicus Curioe-Ci-iminal trial and practice-Appointment of State counsel to defend accuSed-How rhould be done.

Indigence should never be a ground for denying a fair trial or equal jiJstice. Therefore, particular' attention should be paid to appoint competent advocates' equal to handling the complex cases. Sufficieitt time and complete papers should also be made available so that the advocate chosen may serve the cause qi justice with all the help at his command so that the accused may feel confidefft that his counsel, chosen by the cOurt, has had adequate time and Qtaterial to defend him properly. r12G-HJ In the .Present case the accused had made a grievance that amicus curiae came into the picture only on the day the trial, com1nenced. Though this is unfortunate the trial court, by postponing examination of the important wit· nesses to the next day, helped counsel to equip himself fully and the cross-examination hrid not suffered. [73AJ

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Petition for special leave to appeal (Cr!.) No. 674 of 1973.

From the judgment and order dated 28th September, 1972 of the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 966 of 1971.

The Order of the Court was· delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J .-A petition from jail-this is one-demands closer judicial care and we have with deep concern scanned the mate· rials placed before us in the light of the grounds of grievances urged in this appeal. We find no reason to disagree with the findings of guilt and refuse special leave. Even so, we are disturbed, having a look at the proceedings in this case, that the sessions judges do not view with sufficient seriousness the need to appoint State counsel for undefended accused in grave cases. Indigence should never be a ground for denying fair trial or equal justice. Therefore, particular attention should be paid to appoint competent adv,ocates, equal to handling the complex cases-not patronising gestures to raw entrants to the Bar. Sufficient time and complete papers should also be made available, so that the advocate chosen may serve the cause of justice with all the help at his command. In the present case, the · accused has made a grievance that the amicus curiae came into picture only on the day the trial com-menced. This is an unfortunate feature. Nevertheless, we are satisfied B

c

D

E

F

G

H

\

R. M. WASAWA v. GUJARAT (Krishna iyer. J.)

A that by postponing the examination of the important witnesses to the next day the learned Judge h~Jped councel to equip himself fully. We are also sa:tisfied from a perusal of the papers that the cross·examina• tion has not suffered for want of time or facility for counsel for the accused. We should, however, emphasize that in all these ca~s there should be a sensitive approach made by the court to see that the accused felt confident that his counsel chosen by the court has had adequate time and material to defend him properly. Wit11 these observations, we dismissed the petition.

P.B.R.

Pe1ition dismissed.

/