RAJESH BHALLA Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, review is mainly sought on two grounds, namely : (J.) that there was a denial to the petitioner of the right to be represented by a legal practitioner of his choice guaranteed under Art.. 22 (1) of the Constitution, and (2) that there was no sufficient or credible evidence, on which his conviction under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could be sustained in as much as it was unsafe to act upon the two subsequent dying declarations relied upon. We are afraid neither contention can prevail.

(2.) The application for review is accompanied by a separate application containing a prayer for granting an oral hearing to the petitioner on the question whether the review application should be disposed of by circulation or the Court should other wise direct i.e. hear oral arguments on the question. Rule 3ORDER40 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 provides that "Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, the application for review shall be disposed of by circulation without any oral arguments". It is therefore for the Court to decide whether it should dispose of the application for review by circulation or list the application for hearing oral arguments of (he petitioner or his counsel. There is no question of hearing the petitioner or his counsel on the question whether or not the Court Should otherwise direct in terms of Rule 3ORDER40 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966. The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition for oral hearing is accordingly dismissed.

(3.) The contention that the petitioner had been deprived of his constitutional and statutory right to have a legal practitioner of his choice under Art. 22(1) or otherwise appears to be wholly misconceived. There is nothing to show that any adjournment was sought for the appearance of any particular counsel to argue the special leave petition on the ground of indisposition of such counsel nor does the order show that such request for adjournment was made or refused. We may add that no party is entitled to an adjournment as of right. If a senior counsel engaged by a party cannot remain present when a matter is called on for hearing, it is the duty of the advocate-on-record to argue the case. That is what was done in the present case and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard.