1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr. P.C. moved on behalf of the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 18th February, 2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 02/2015 vide FIR No. 1291/2014 u/s 376/323/506 IPC registered with Police Station Sarai Rohilla vide which the prayer of the petitioner for recalling the prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination was declined.

2. FIR in the instant case was registered on the basis of statement made by prosecutrix “X” wherein she leveled allegations of commission of rape upon her on 5th December, 2014 by the petitioner in his cab No. DL-1YD-7910 Swift Desire while she was returning home in that cab. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. After hearing arguments on charge, charge u/s 376(2)(m) 323/356/506 IPC was framed. Thereafter prosecution in all examined 28 witnesses. Statement of petitioner u/s 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded. Thereafter application u/s 311 Cr. P.C. was moved for recalling all the prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination which was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide the impugned order. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed.

3. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the previous defence counsel Sh. Alok Dubey having enrolment No. D-2695/14 and Sh. Ankit Bhatia having enrolment No.2805/14 got the petitioner’s vakalatnama signed at Tihar Jail to defend his case. Both the advocates were very new to the profession and Sh. Alok Dubey, Advocate had not even passed the screen test as was required by Bar Council of Delhi and, as such, was not competent to contest the case on behalf of the petitioner. The vakalatnama does not even contain the name of the Court for which the counsels came to be appointed. It was submitted that besides the maxim justice delayed is justice denied there is other judicial maxim justice hurried is justice buried which applies to the facts of the present case. The trial has been conducted in this case on a day to day basis without allowing the petitioner even breathing space to have a fair conference with his counsel which is vital and necessary for fair defence in such cases wherein the petitioner can be punished for a substantially long period of incarceration.

4. It was further submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the case of the petitioner as disclosed in application u/s 311 Cr. P.C. was not that of change of counsel but that of being represented by a counsel who was a novice in law, incompetent and having just enrolled as an advocate who does not know the nuances of conducting evidence which is vital for a fair defence, leave aside conducting trial in such a serious matter. It is evident from the fact that questions have been asked which are self incriminatory. The counsel for the petitioner has taken up the case pro bono because the accused is an indigent person and does not have the wherewithal to match the might of the State who have engaged Special Public Prosecutor. While the object of having Fast Track Courts may be to have an expeditious trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot overlook the judicial dictum that right to defence includes the right to effective and meaningful defence at the trial. The process of justice may be speeded up and hurried but the fairness which is a basic element of justice cannot be permitted to be buried. It was required to be seen whether the petitioner was having meaningful and effective defence or not even though the counsel may be of the choice of the accused.

5. It was further submitted that the counsel engaged by the petitioner failed to conduct the cross-examination of the witnesses properly; that material portions of evidence available on record were not put to t