SHAKRAJI CHATURJI RAVAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is original accused No. 1 in Sessions Case No. 30 of 1971 of the Sessions Court Ahmedabad Rural at Narol The appellant before us and his wife were the two accused in that case before the learned Sessions Judge. The charge against the two accused was that accused No. 1 had intentionally caused the death of Sagramji Khemaji by giving a knife blow on his stomach and thereby committed an offence punishable under sec. 302 I.P.C. and accused No. 2 was alleged to have abetted accused No. 1 in the commission of the offence of murder and thereby committed an offence punishable under sec. 302 read with sec. 109 I.P.C. It was further alleged against accused No. 1 that at the time of the commission of offence accused No. 1 was in possession of a Rampuriknife in a public place and thereby contravened the Notification dated December 18 1970 issued by the Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad City under sec. 37(1) of the Bombay Police Act; and it was alleged that he had thereby committed an offence punishable under sec. 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. At the end of the trial the learned Sessions Judge found accused No. 2 wife of the present appellant not guilty of any offence whatsoever and he directed that she should be acquitted. He however found accused No. 1 guilty of the offence punishable under sec. 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to R.I. for life. The appellant was acquitted of the offence punishable under sec. 136(1) of the Bombay Police Act as the learned trial Judge was not satisfied that the Notification of the Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad City was duly published in the area in which the accused were residing.

(2.) In the view that we take it is not necessary to set out in detail he prosecution case. It was alleged against the accused that the incident took place on January 25 1971 at about 6 P. M. near the main highway running between Ahmedabad City and Dehgam and in the course of that incident accused No. 1 the present appellant is alleged to have stabbed Sagramji Khemaji with a Rampuri knife on his stomach and this injury proved fatal as the deceased expired at the Civil Hospital Ahmedabad where he was admitted. It may be pointed out that after the completion of the investigation in the case a charge sheet was submitted against the accused in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class City Taluka; and at that time both the accused were represented by advocates M/s. M. G. Amin and V. P. Patel. The order committing the accused to the Court of Sessions was passed by the learned Magistrate on May 12 1971 When the examination under sec. 342 Cr.P.C. was carried out before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class who committed the two accused to the Court of Sessions the usual question was asked whether either of the two accused wanted Government to make arrangements for their defence and both the accused slated that they would make their own arrangement and that they did not want the Government to make any arrangement for the defence. The question asked to each accused was:-

(3.) Mr. Trivedi for the appellant before us has contended that the learned Sessions Judge had not given sufficient time to Mr. V. P. Patel who was appointed as advocate for the accused at Government expense to enable him to obtain instructions from the two accused to prepare properly for the defence of the accused and hence prejudice has been caused to the appellant in his defence. Mr. Trivedi pointed out that relevant rules have been framed under the Law Officers Conditions of Service Rules framed by the Government of Bombay as far back as 19th August 1939 under the provisions of sec. 241(2)(b) of the Government of India Act 1935 and that in violation of the relevant rule the learned trial Judge failed co give sufficient time to Mr. V. P. Patel for preparing for the defence of the two accused.