72
RANCHOD MA1HUR WASAWA
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT
October 15, 1973.
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND R. S. SARKARJA, JJ.]
Amicus Curioe-Ci-iminal trial and practice-Appointment of State counsel
to defend accuSed-How rhould be done.
Indigence should never be a ground for denying a fair trial or equal jiJstice.
Therefore, particular' attention should be paid to appoint competent advocates'
equal to handling the complex cases.
Sufficieitt time and complete papers
should also be made available so that the advocate chosen
may
serve the
cause qi justice with all the help at his command so that the accused may feel
confidefft that his counsel, chosen by the cOurt, has had adequate time and
Qtaterial to defend him properly.
r12G-HJ
In the .Present case the accused had made a grievance that amicus curiae
came into the picture only on the day the trial, com1nenced.
Though this is
unfortunate the trial court, by postponing examination of the important
wit·
nesses to the next day, helped counsel to equip himself fully and the cross-
examination hrid not suffered.
[73AJ
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Petition for special leave to
appeal (Cr!.) No. 674 of 1973.
From the judgment and order dated 28th September, 1972 of the
Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 966 of
1971.
The Order of the Court was· delivered by
KRISHNA IYER, J .-A petition from jail-this is
one-demands
closer judicial care and we have with deep concern scanned the mate·
rials placed before us in the light of the grounds of grievances urged
in this appeal. We find no reason to disagree with the findings of
guilt and refuse special leave.
Even so, we are disturbed, having a
look at the proceedings in this case, that the sessions judges do not
view with sufficient seriousness the need to appoint State counsel for
undefended accused in grave cases.
Indigence should never be
a
ground for denying fair trial or equal justice.
Therefore, particular
attention should be paid to appoint competent adv,ocates, equal to
handling the complex cases-not patronising gestures to raw entrants
to the Bar.
Sufficient time and complete papers should also
be
made available, so
that
the
advocate
chosen may serve
the
cause of justice with
all the help
at his
command. In the
present
case,
the · accused
has
made
a grievance
that the
amicus curiae came into picture only on the
day
the
trial
com-
menced.
This is an unfortunate feature. Nevertheless, we are satisfied
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
\
R. M. WASAWA v. GUJARAT (Krishna iyer. J.)
13
that by postponing the examination of the important witnesses to the
next day the learned Judge h~Jped councel to equip himself fully. We
are also sa:tisfied from a perusal of the papers that the cross·examina•
tion has not suffered for want of time or facility for counsel for the
accused. We should, however, emphasize that in all these ca~s there
should be a sensitive approach made by the court to see that the
accused felt confident that his counsel chosen by the court has had
adequate time and material to defend him properly.
Wit11 these
observations, we dismissed the petition.
P.B.R.
Pe1ition dismissed.
/
Lex