Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
RANCHOD MATHUR WASAWA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF GUJARAT
DATE OF JUDGMENT15/10/1973
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH
CITATION:
1974 AIR 1143 1974 SCR (2) 72
1974 SCC (3) 581
ACT:
Amicus Curioe-Criminal trial and practice-Appointment of
State counsel to defend accused-How should be done.
HEADNOTE:
Indigence should never be a ground for denying a fair trial
or equal justice. Therefore, particular attention should be
paid to appoint competent advocates equal to handling the
complex cases. Sufficient time and complete papers should
also be made available so that the advocate chosen may serve
the cause of justice with all the hell) at his command so
that the accused may feel confident that his counsel, chosen
by the court, has had adequate time and material to defend
him properly. [72G-H]
In the present case the accused had made a grievance that
amicus curioe came into the picture only on the day the
trial commenced. Though this is unfortunate the trial
court, by postponing examination of the important witnesses
to the next day, helped counsel to equip himself fully and
the cross-examination had not suffered. [73A]
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Petition for special leave
to appeal (Crl.) 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 materials 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 advocates, equal to handling the complex
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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
curioe came into picture only on the day the trial com-
menced. This is an unfortunate feature. Nevertheless, we
are satisfied
73
that by postponing the examination of the important
witnesses to the next day the learned Judge helped counsel
to equip himself fully. We are also satisfied from a
perusal of the papers that the cross-examination has not
suffered for want of time or facility for counsel for the,
accused. We should, however, emphasize that in all these
cases 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. With these observations, we dismissed
the petition.
P.B.R. Petition dismissed.
74