SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1983 Supreme(SC) 140

A.P.SEN, R.S.PATHAK
Ranjan Dwivedi – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent


Advocates:
A.SUBASHINI, G.C.PATEL, K.PRASAD HEGDE, M.K.BANERJI, V.M.TARKUNDE

Judgment

SEN, J. :- This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution raises a question of some nicety. The question is whether the right to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice under Art. 22 (1) of the Constitution comprehends the right of an accused to be supplied with a lawyer by the State.

2. The petitioner is an advocate-on-record practising in this Court and has been arraigned along with four others to stand his trial for the commission of an alleged offence of murder in furtherance of criminal conspiracy punishable under S. 302 read with S. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code in what is known as the Samastipur Bomb Blast case in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. Bawa Gurcharan Singh engaged by the main accused Santoshanand and Sudevanand as senior counsel was also appearing for the petitioner as a matter of professional courtesy to a fellow member of the Bar. The evidence of the first approver P. W. 1 Madan Mohan Srivastava alias Visheshwaranand was concluded on March 25, 1981 and he was cross-examined by Bawa Gurcharan Singh on behalf of the main accused as well as the petitioner, and by P. P. Grover appearing on behalf of the other two accused Arteshan






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top