STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus SHOBHARAM AND ORS.

Citation: [1966] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 239 · Decided: 22-04-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SARKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
239 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
v. 
SHOBHARAM AND ORS. 
April 22, 1966 
[A. K. SA/RKAR, C.J., M. HIDAYATULLAH, J. R. MUDHOLKAR, 
R. S. BACHAWAT AND J. M. SHELAT, JJ.) 
Madhyabharat Panchayat Jl.ct (58 of 1949), s. 63-If violates 
Art. 22 of the Constitution. 
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 22(1)-Right of accused to be de· 
fended by counsel-If ensures in cases when accused cannot be sen-
tenced to imprisonment. 
The respondents were arrested by the police for the offence of 
trespass and were released on bail. They were tried and sentenced 
to pay a fine by the Nyaya Panchayat, a court established under the 
Madhya Bharat Panchayat Act, 1949, with powers to impose only a 
sentence of fine. The conviction was set aside by the High Court on 
the ground that s. 63 of the Act, which provides that no legal practi-
tioner shall appear on behalf of any party in a proceeding before the 
Nyaya Panchayat, violated Art. 22(1) of the Constitution and was 
therefore void. 
HELD: (Per Sarkar C.J., and Mudholkar, J.): The High Court 
was in error in setting aside the conviction. 
Under Art. 22(1) a person arrested has the constitutional right to 
consult a legal practitioner concerning his arrest; and, a person who 
has been arrested as well as one who, though not arrested runs the 
risk of loss of personal liberty as a result of a trial, have the consti-
tutional right to be defended by an advocate of their choice. But in a 
trial under a law which does not provide for an order resulting in 
the Joos of his personal liberty, he is not entitled to the constitutional 
rtght. because, the Article is concerned only with giving protection to 
personal liberty. [241 H-242 C. 244 B-C]. 
The Act does not give any power to deprive any one of his per-
sonal liberty either by way of arrest before the trial or by way of 
sentence of imorisonment as a result of the trial; nor does it deprive 
an arrested person of his constitutional right to take steps against the 
arrest or to defend himself at a trial which might occasion the loss 
of his personal liberty. The fact that the resoondents were arrested 
under another statute, namely, the Criminal Procedure Code can-
not make either the section or the Act void. [242 G-H; 243 C-D; 244 
D-E] 
I 
I 
' ... l 
State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya, 
[19511 
S.C.R. 
167. 204. followed. 
QUAERE: Whether resnondents were not entitled to the consti-
tutional right because, at the trial they were on bail. [244 E] 
Per Bachawat and She lat JJ.: Section 63 of the Act is violative 
of Art. 22(1) and is void to the extent that it denies any person 
who is arrested the right to be defended bv a legal practitioner of 
his choice in any trial for the crime for which he is arrested. but, 
the order of the High Court, quashing the conviction, should be set 
• 
B 
D 
E. 
F 
G 
H 
!l. :P. 
3T.A.TE v. eo11HAI1ill (Sarkar, O.J.) 
Ul 
B. Sen and /. N. Shroff, for the appellant. 
B. D. Sharma, for the respondents. 
A. V. Rangam, for Intervener No. I. 
V. A. Seyid Muhammad, Advocate-General, Kerala, B. R. L. 
Iyengar, A. G. Pudessery and M. R. K. K. Pillai fur Intervene!! 
No. 2. 
B. R. G. K. Achar, for intervener No. 3 
The Judgment of SARKAR C.J. 
and 
MUDHOLKAR 
J. was 
delivered by SARKAR C.J. The Judgment of BACHAWAT and. SHELAT 
J J. was delivered by BA CHAW AT J. HIDAYATULLAH J. delivered a 
dissenting Opinion. 
Sarkar, C.J. On a complaint of trespass the police registered 
a case against the respondents under s. 447 of the Penal Code. The 
respondents were later arrested by the police and released on the 
execution of surety bonds whereby the sureties undertook to pro-
duce them as required by the police. The case against the respon-
dents was thereafter put up before the Nyaya Panchayat, a court 
established under the Madhya Bharat Panchayat Act, 1949. In 
that court, fresh bonds were executed by sureties on behalf of the 
respondents to ensure their presence during the trial. The Nyaya 
Panchayat, after trial, convicted and sentenced the respondents to 
a fine of Rs. 75 each. The conviction was upheld by the Additional 
Sessions Judge, Barwani. The respondents then moved the High 
Court of Madhya Pradesh in revision which set aside the convic-
tion. Hence the present appeal. 
Section 63 of the Panchayat Act provides that no legal prac-
titioner sh~ll appear on behalf of or shall plead for or defend any 
party in any dispute, case or proceeding pending before the Nyaya 
Panchayat. T
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.