The State does not have the authority to engage a defence Counsel to represent an accused person in a criminal trial without ascertaining the wishes of the accused.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred under Section 411a of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Panchu Gopal who has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life in a trial held in the Fourth Criminal Sessions of 1964 presided by our learned brother, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice A K. Das sitting with a Special Jury in the ordinary Original Criminal Jurisdiction of this Court. The jury delivered a unanimous verdict of guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against Panchu Gopal and accepting that unanimous verdict the learned Judge convicted him for that offence and awarded a sentence of imprisonment for life on September 16. 1984.

( 2 ) THE occurrence that led to the charge against the appellant happened on the 12th September, 1963 The Magistrate made the order of commitment on 7-3-64 Before the Magistrate the procedure under Section 207 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was followed The accused does not appear to have appointed any lawyer on his behalf during that proceeding. After he was committed to be tried in the Court of Session and before the trial commenced on the 7th of Febmary, 1964. two lawyers were engaged by the State to appear for the accused at the trial. The minutes of the trial in this Court show that Mr. P. C Barua with Mr. Mahadev Ghosh. both Advocates of this Court appeared for the prosecution and Mr. Bonbehari Das with Mr. Joydev Mallick "appeared for the accused being engaged by the State. " On the first day of the trial Mr. Bonbehari Das prayed for two copies of depositions free of charge, one for himself and the other for his junior Mr. Joyeder Mallick The learned presiding judge granted the prayer and allowed two copies of deposition free of charge Throughout the trial Mr. Bonebehari Das assisted by bis learned junior conducted the case for defence by cross-examining the witnesses examined for the prosecution and he addressed the fury on behalf of the accused after Mr. Barua addressed the Jury at the close of the evidence in the trial.

( 3 ) AFTER the order of conviction was made the accused preferred this appeal from Alipore Central Jail on 13th November, 1964, under Section 411a of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By an order dated the 20th November, 1964, a Division Bench on the Appellate Side admitted the appeal to be heard and in that order granted Special Leave under Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 411a of the Code of Criminal Procedure The appellant was not represented by any lawyer at that preliminary hearing for admission. Usual notices were issued upon that order admitting the appeal including a notice under Section 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the appellant himself who was then lodged in All-pore Central Jail The two Counsels who re-presented him at the trial have not been made available in him in this appeal

( 4 ) WHEN this appeal was placed before us for fixing a date of hearing, we noticed that the appellant who was tried and convicted on a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and who was defended at the trial by two Counsel engaged by the State to represent him had neither appointed a lawyer to argue the appeal on his behalf nor the State had made any arrangement for representation of this appellant at the hearing of the appeal When that situation was revealed in the open Court, in accordance with invariable and helpful practice of the Bar (sic) learned Advocate Mr. Jyotish Bose expressed his willingness to argue the case for the convicted appellant amicus curiae at the request of the Court Under our orders a copy of the brief was made available to Mr. Bose and the said learned Advocate has argued the case for the appellant over several days with commendable zeal and enormous labour although he was not engaged on fees either by the appellant or by the State. The assistance Mr. Bose gave to this Court in dealing with the appeal has been very valu