MOUSHAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Section 397 read with Sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 against the two separate judgments/orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby their appeals against the order passed by the trial Court holding them guilty of the commission of offence punishable under Section 2(1)(i) of The Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959 were dismissed and their detention in a Certified Institution for a period of one year was also maintained.

(2.) THE only point urged before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners in both these petitions was that the orders of the Courts below are liable to be set aside since the petitioners were held guilty only on their pleading guilty on the first date itself when they were produced before the trial Court and were unrepresented by any lawyer. It is the grievance of the petitioners that they should have first of all been legal aid by the trial Court itself before punishing them. This, according to the counsel for the petitioners, was the duty of the trial Court even to apprise them of their right to have legal aid at State expense. Since this was the only point urged in both the petitions and were argued also together by the same counsel, the same are being disposed of by this common order.

(3.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter and have unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that both these petitions deserve to be allowed as the petitioners have been held guilty of being professions beggars without a fair trial which they were entitled to get even if a summary procedure was to be followed for their trial Summary procedure does not mean no procedure at all or trial ignoring the law laid down by the highest Court of the land which has been by the learned Special Magistrate in the case of these two petitioners.