BIYAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Section 561-A, Cri. P. C., the State seeks to get reversed our order made in Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 1962, wherein we set aside the order of conviction made by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, in Sessions Case No. 49 of 1961 and directed a retrial.

(2.) The material facts are very few. In Sessions Case No. 49 of 1961. the two accused before the trial Court were tried for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, I. P. C. In that case, the first accused had to be provided with legal assistance by the State, as she was too poor to engage a lawyer to defend her. In the trial Court she was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A-2 was acquitted. As against her conviction and the sentence, she appealed to this Court from Jail. In this Court her appeal was handled by one of the counsel appearing on behalf of the Legal Aid Society. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for her represented to the Court that the Counsel appointed by the trial Court to defend the accused had not enough time to acquaint himself with the facts of the case. It was said that he had been engaged on the very day the case came up for trial, i.e., 11-12-1961; therefore, he was unable to discharge his duties properly. This statement made on behalf of the appellant was not controverted by the learned Counsel appearing for the State. The Judge's notes printed also gave us the impression that the defence Counsel had been engaged only on the date of the trial of the case. Therefore, we allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellant with the following remarks:

(3.) If this Court has power to review the order, I have no doubt it is a fit and proper case for so doing. Therefore, all that we have to see is whether we have power to review our order referred to above.