FR JOSE POOTHRIKKAYIL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The contraversry is about an unfortunate inadvertent statement which had crept into para. 38 of the order passed by this Court on 28.11.08, which has been reported in Fr. Jose Poothrikkayail v. Union of India 2008 (4) KLT 822. It was a dictation at the Bench. The relevant portion is extracted below:

(2.) After discussions at the Bar in that case, it was observed that the accused are entitled to have legal consultation with one lawyer of their choice. The time had to be fixed. The venue had to be fixed. The modalities had to be fixed. While the dictation was going on, the time, venue etc. were fixed by discussion with counsel. The person responsible for ensuring that the directions were followed had to be specified. It was mentioned at the bar that it may be in presence of the Investigating Officer and that was accepted and that is how that portion (underlined above) crept into the order. Little did I think that this could be interpreted to mean that an accused and his counsel must hold legal consultations in the physical presence within audible distance of the Investigating Officer. Nothing could have been more preposterous and puerile than that. No one in the legal fraternity with a modicum of law in his cranium could ever have though he accused and his counsel can be obliged by a Court to held legal consultation in the presence of the Investigating Officer, impending their right to have consultation in a free atmosphere. That would have been negation of the very right.

(3.) That direction was issued. No one raised any objections against that direction. It die not occur to me, I must unreservedly confess, that such a direction can be interpreted to mean hat the accused and his counsel must hold discussions and consultations in the presence of the investigating Officer. No one having sought clarification, I did not think it necessary that suo motu clarification must be made.