( 1 ) THIS is a revision under Sections 397, 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short hereinafter referred as Code), challenging the order passed by Additional sessions Judge, Ujjain and Special Judge (NDPS Act), on 6-12-2005 in Sessions Trial no. 200/2005 whereby the learned Court has ordered to file the power submitted by shri R. C. Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Pyar singh in that case.

( 2 ) ACCUSED Pyar Singh (applicant in the present revision) and some others were being tried by the learned Additional Sessions judge and Special Judge for offence punishable under Sections 397,450, 506 (b) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. At the time of commencement of the proceedings before the learned Sessions Judge the applicant was not in a position to engage a counsel and, therefore, one Mr. B. M. Sharma was appointed to defend the applicant in the sessions trial. Later on applicant engaged Shri R. C. Pandey and his companions to appear, act and plead for him in the sessions trial. Shri R. C. Pandey Advocate submitted his memo of appearance in the case and also filed application for re-' leasing the applicant on temporary bail. The permission was granted by the learned trial court and thereafter, the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence. On 5-12-2005 Shri r. C. Pandey Advocate and his companions submitted the Vakalatnama duly signed by the applicant before the learned trial Court then Mr. B. M. Sharma, Advocate who was appointed by District Legal Services Authority for appellant raised certain objections. The learned Court vide impugned order held that to Mr. B. M. Sharma Advocate has already appointed to defend the applicant in the sessions case on his prayer, when he does not possess sufficient means to engage his private counsel then permission to engage a private counsel cannot be granted. The learned Judge referred Regulation 33 of the M. P. Legal Services Authorities Regulations, 1997. (Regulations as made by M. P. State Legal Services Authority in consultation with the Chief Justice exercising powers conferred by Section 29 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1997 ). The learned judge referring Regulation 33 held that :-"the condition mentioned in Regulation 33 are not fulfilled in the present case and the present case does not come under any circumstances mentioned in the Regulation 33, therefore, once legal aid has been provided to applicant on State's expenses then he can be permitted to engage a private counsel. "

( 3 ) ON the basis on this finding the vakalatnama filed by Shri Pandey, Advocate was ordered to be filed and he was not permitted to appear, plead and act on behalf of applicant Pyar Singh.

( 4 ) SHRI R. C. Pandey learned counsel for the applicant submitted that every accused in a criminal trial has got a right guaranteed by Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of india, to be defended by an Advocate of his choice. Present applicant cannot be deprived of his this right guaranteed by Constitution of India. He has further submitted that under the provisions of Section 303 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also an accused of a criminal trial has got a right to be defended by a counsel of his choice. The impugned order passed by learned trial Court is in contravention of the provision of Section 303 of Code of Criminal Procedure and is unsustainable, therefore, he prays that the impugned order be set aside and trial Court be directed to permit Shri R. C. Pandey, advocate to appear, act and plead on behalf of the applicant.

( 5 ) SHRI Ajay Kakani learned counsel for the State has submitted that he does not oppose the submissions made by Shri R. C. Pandey, Advocate.

( 6 ) SECTIONS 303 and 304 of the Code of criminal Procedure read as under :-"303. Right of person against whom proceedings are instituted to be defended.- Any person accused of an offence before a criminal Court, or against whom proceedings are instituted under this Code, may of right be defended by a pleader of his choice. ""304. Leg

Click Here to Read the rest of this document