( 1. ) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 345 of 1986, M. P. S. R. T. C. v. Arun and Anr. ; Misc. Cri. Case No. 292 of 1988, M. P. S. R. T. C. v. Arun and Anr. ; Criminal Appeal No. 346 of 1988, M. P. S. R. T. C. v. Girirajkishore and Anr. and Misc. Cri. Case No. 534 of 1988, M. P. S. R. T. C. v. Girirajkishore and Anr. . As only one common question of law is involved in all these appeals, all these cases are being decided by a single order.

( 2. ) THIS is an appeal against acquittal. Accused-respondent No. 1 has been acquitted of charge Under Section 3/7 of the M. P. Rajya Parivahan Sewa Bina-Ticket Yatra Ki Rok Adhiniyam, 1974 (for short, the Adhiniyan), by the 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore, vide judgment/order dated 25-11-1987, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 1987. Misc. Cri. Case No. 407 of 1988 has also been filed by the appellant-Corporation for grant of leave to appeal against the aforesaid judgment/order.

( 3. ) ACCUSED-RESPONDENT No. 1 pleaded guilty to the charge and was convicted by the trial Court. On appeal the appellate Court, following a decision of the Supreme Court in Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, AIR 1986 SC 991, set aside the conviction amnd acquitted the accused-respondent No. 1 of the charge Under Section 3/7 of the Adhiniyam. ( 4. ) SHRI Dhupar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Corporation, placing reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Tara Singh v. The State, AIR 1951 SC 441, contended that the right to legal assistance is a privilege given to the accused and it is his duty to ask for a lawyer if he wants to engage one. The only duty cast on the Magistrate is to afford him the necessary opportunity.

( 5. ) IN Tara Singhs case (supra), the Supreme Court was considering and interpreting Section 340 (1) of the Old Criminal Procedure Code and it was in that context and in the peculiar circumstances of the case where the appellant Tara Singh was charged with both patricide as well as murder of his uncle and the relations were found to be reluctant to come to his rescue, in such a case the plea of want of legal assistance was taken for the sake of raising a point and was found to be without any substance. Much water has flown under the bridge since Tara Singhs case (supra ). The Code of Criminal Procedure has itself been drastically changed and that apart the Constitution has been amended providing making the legal aid and assistance as one of the Articles for the directive principles of State Policy and there have been a catena of cases on this point. Article 39-A has been interpreted along with Article 21 of the Constitution, which is a fundamental right of the citizen of India.

( 6. ) THE Supreme Court in its earlier decision in Khatri v. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 928, has ruled that the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge before whom the accused appears, must be held to be under an obligation to inform the accused that if he is unable to engage the services of a lawyer on account of poverty or indigence, he is entitled to get free legal services at the cost of the State.

( 7. ) IN order to overcome the effect of Suk Dass case (supra), learned counsel referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Sarup v. Union of India, AIR 1965 SC 247, and contended that being a larger Bench decision this case should be preferred against Suk Das (supra ). In support of his argument he cited a decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Jivan v. Phoola, AIR 1976 SC 844. The proposition that a larger Bench decision should be preferred and followed, cannot be disputed. But Ram Sarups case (supra) arose out of a General Court Martial and the Supreme Court was considering the various provisions of the Army Act. This case, therefore, does not help the appellant for yet another reason, that Article 39a, which was introduced in the Constitution by 42nd Amendment, reflects the recongnition of the principle that legal aid is an essential and integral par