The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the State to provide legal aid to the poor as part of fair trial and equal opportunity in the justice delivery system, as guaranteed under Art.14, 21, 22, and 39A of the Constitution. The judgment emphasizes the need for positive action for due compliance with the mandates of the Supreme Court to ensure the right to personal liberty.

1. The accused in C.C. No. 71 of 1982 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ottapalam is the petitioner in this case. He had unsuccessfully appealed his conviction under S.394 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years before the Court of Session, Palghat in Criminal Appeal No. 163 of 1982. The challenge in this petition is against the judgment of the Court of Session confirming his conviction and sentence.

2. The facts are only a few, but the points involved are matters of great moment in the context of rights for personal liberty under Art.14 and 21 of the Constitution in the context of the obligation of the State to provide legal aid to the poor as provided under Art.39A of the Constitution and S.304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. The petitioner is alleged to have threatened Pw.1 a female school teacher, with a dagger at about 7.30P.M. on 22-2-1982 while pw.1 was returning along a Panchayat road from Vengali temple, and he is alleged to have caught hold of a golden chain worn by pw.1. Since she resisted the petitioner's attempt to snatch away the chain, the petitioner could get only a portion of the gold chain and he made good his escape when Pw.1 made a hue and cry. The petitioner was arrested in connection with another crime at about 11.00 p. m. on 22-2-1982. Pw-1 gave Ext. P1 first information at the Police Station, Ottapalam, on 23-2-1982 and identified the petitioner who was then in the lock up as the assailant. The police recovered M. 0.1 knife from the petitioner and also recorded a confession from the petitioner. The petitioner was in custody from 11.00 p.m. on 22-2-1982 and during the course of the trial which commenced on 12-4-1982 and ended in his conviction on 11-6-1982. He was not informed of his right to be released on bail under S.167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, nor was he provided with the service of a lawyer at the cost of the State to enable him to move for bail as enjoined upon all Magistrates in the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, 1980 (1) SCC 108. I deem it necessary that the following observations of the Supreme Court contained in the decision referred to supra bears repetition, since in spite of the positive mandates contained therein, the undertrial prisoners are yet to be afforded the benefits of the decision of the Supreme Court:

"When an undertrial prisoner is produced before a Magistrate and he has been in detention for 90 days or 60 days, as the case may be, the Magistrate must, before making an order of further remand to judicial custody, point out to the undertrial prisoner that he is entitled to be released on bail. The State Government must also provide at its on cost a lawyer to the undertrial prisoner with a view to enabling him to apply for bail in exercise of his right under priviso (a) to sub-section (2) of S.167 and the Magistrate must take care to see that the right of the undertrial prisoner to the assistance of a lawyer provided at State cost is secured to him and be must deal with the application for bail in accordance with the guidelines laid down by us in our Order dated February 12.1979. We hope and trust that every Magistrate in the country and every State Government will act in accordance with this mandate of the Court. This is the constitutional obligation of the State Government and the Magistrates, and we have no doubt that if this is strictly carried out, there will be considerable improvement in the situation in regard to undertrial prisoners and there will be proper observance of the rule of law."

4. Handicapped as he was due to absence of any legal counsel for his defence, the petitioner stood his trial with a sense of resignation characteristic alike in the forsaken underprivileged and perhaps the hardened criminal. The charge against him was sought to be proved by the oral testimony of 7 witnesses, of whom pws.1 and 2 alone were claimed as oc