Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.37 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Khatri & Ors. Etc vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 10 March, 1981
But it is surprising that despite this declaration of the law in Khatri v. State of Bihar (supra) on 19th December,1980 when the decision was rendered in that case, the High Court persisted in taking the view that since the appellants did not make an application for free legal assistance, no unconstitutionality was involved in not providing them legal representation at State cost. It is obvious that in the present case the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner did not inform the appellants that they were entitled to free legal assistance and inquire from them whether they wanted a lawyer to be provided to them at State cost. The result was that the appellants remained unrepresentedby a lawyer and the trial ultimately resulted in their conviction. This was clearly a violation of the fundamental right of the appellants under Article 21 and the trial must accordingly be held to be vitiated on account of a fatal constitutional infirmity, and the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants must be set aside."
Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 August, 1978
It would in these circumstances make a mockery of legal aid if it were to be left to a poor, ignorant and illiterate accused to ask for free legal service. Legal aid would become merely a paper promise and it would fail of its purpose. This is the reason why in Khatri v. state of Bihar , we ruled that the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge before whom an accused appears must be held to be under an obligation to inform the accused that if he is unable to engage the services of a lawyer on account of poverty or indigence, he is entitled to obtain free legal services at the cost of the State. We deplored that in that case where the accused were blinded prisoners the Judicial Magistrate failed to discharge his obligation and contended himself by merely observing that no legal representation had been asked for by the blinded prisoners and hence none was provided. We accordingly directed 'the Magistrates and Sessions Judges in the country to inform every accused who appears before them and who is not represented by a lawyer on account of his poverty or indigence that he is entitled to free legal services at the cost of the State' unless he is not willing to take advantage of the free legal services provided by the State. We also gave a general direction to every State in the country "......to make provision for grant of free legal service to an accused who is unable to engage a lawyer on account of reasons such as poverty, indigence or incommunicado situations," the only qualification being that the offence charged against an accused is such that, on conviction, it would result in a sentence of imprisonment and is of such a nature that the circumstances of the case and the needs of social justice require that he should be given free legal representations.