Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N. AGRAWALANDA.K. MATHUR, JJ.
ASHOK MANIKCHAND CHANKESHWARA AND OTHERS Appellants;
Versus
H.R. BARGE AND ANOTHER Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 783 of 2005
Decided on March 23, 2006
Legal Aid - Right to Counsel - The court set aside the conviction and remitted the case back to the High Court, emphasizing that the appellants should have been provided with legal aid and counsel, especially considering the seriousness of the offence and the absence of representation during the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were acquitted by the trial court, but the High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted them without providing legal aid or counsel, despite the appellants being unrepresented during the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the absence of legal representation for the appellants during the appeal, especially for a serious offence with a minimum sentence of ten years, was a violation of their right to counsel and legal aid. The conviction was set aside, and the case was remitted back to the High Court for proper disposal with the opportunity for legal representation.
Issues: Violation of right to counsel and legal aid during appeal
Ratio Decidendi: The absence of legal representation for the appellants during the appeal, especially for a serious offence with a minimum sentence of ten years, was a violation of their right to counsel and legal aid.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the case was remitted back to the High Court for proper disposal with the opportunity for legal representation.
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The appellants were tried and by judgment rendered by the trial court all of them were acquitted of the charges. On appeal being preferred, the High Court reversed the order of acquittal and convicted the appellants. Hence this appeal by special leave.
3. In the present case from the impugned judgment itself, it would appear that the accused were not represented by any counsel. It appears that they preferred an appeal through counsel but when the hearing of the appeal was taken up, nobody turned up on their behalf to press the appeal. The Court did not provide any counsel to the appellants by way of legal aid, but after hearing the counsel appearing on behalf of the State disposed of the appeal and reversed the order of acquittal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that in the absence of the counsel, the High Court should have provided a counsel to the appellants by way of legal aid and same having not been done, the impugned order is fit to be set aside, especially, in view of the fact that the appellants have been found guilty in relation to an offence for which minimum sentence provided under law is ten years.
4. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order rendered by the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted back to that Court to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. The appeal shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
