Legal representation is crucial in criminal cases; absent counsel cannot justify conviction, reinforcing Article 21 rights.

ORDER

This revision is directed against the concurrent findings of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perambra, and the Additional Sessions Court-II, Kozhikode, in CC No.28/2003 and Crl. Appeal No.310/2005 respectively, convicting and sentencing the petitioners for the commission of offences under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 323 and 324 IPC read with Section 149 .

2. Since there was no representation from the part of the petitioners on repeated posting dates, notices were duly issued to the petitioners intimating that in the event of their further non-representation, the case would be disposed of by this Court in their absence. Still the petitioners did not appear. In the above circumstances, this Court appointed Adv. Mr.Aaron Zacharias Benny, as amicus curiae to represent the petitioners.

3. When the matter was taken up for consideration on 23.01.2026, the learned amicus curiae representing the revision petitioners pointed out that the Appellate Court has decided the appeal without hearing the counsel for the appellants, and that the above verdict is apparently hit by the law laid down by the Apex Court in Md. Sukur Ali v. State of Assam [ AIR (2011) SC 1222 ].

4. The learned Amicus Curie as well as the learned Public Prosecutor are heard today on the above matter.

5. The impugned judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Court on 24.06.2006 in Crl.Appeal No.310/2025 makes it clear that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had disposed of the above appeal without hearing the counsel for the appellants, since there was no representation on the part of the appellants even after repeated adjournments having been given to them for advancing arguments.

6. The learned Amicus Curiae has brought the attention of this Court to Para 7 of the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case which is extracted hereunder:

“We are of the opinion that even assuming that the counsel for the accused does not appear because of the counsel's negligence or deliberately, even then the Court should not decide a criminal case against the accused in the absence of his counsel since an accused in a criminal case should not suffer for the fault of his counsel and in such a situation the Court should appoint another counsel as amicus curiae to defend the accused. This is because liberty of a person is the most important feature of our Constitution. Article 21 which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty is the most important fundamental right of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Article 21 can be said to be the 'heart and soul' of the fundamental rights.”

7. In view of the law that has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, the judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Court in Crl.Appeal without hearing the counsel for the appellants, would be legally invalid. In the above circumstances, it is highly necessary to set aside the judgment rendered by the Appellate Court and remand back the case to the said Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

In the result, the revision stands allowed as follows:

1) The judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Court II, Kozhikode, in Crl.Appeal No.310/2005, upholding the conviction and sentence awarded by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perambra, in CC No.28/2003, is hereby set aside.

2. The case is remanded back to the Court of Sessions, Kozhikode, with a direction to dispose of the appeal afresh after hearing the counsel for the petitioners/appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

3. In the absence of the counsel representing the appellants, the Appellate Court shall appoint a counsel who is practis