MOHAN Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE THANDARAMPET CIRCLE THANIPADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by the petitioner, fourth accused namely, Mohan in S.C.No.1 of 1993 on the file of the Sessions Court, Thiruvannamalai against the order of dismissal passed by the Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai in Crl.M.P.No.4505 of 2003 in S.C.No.1 of 1993 on 15.3.2004, whereby the petitioner prayed for denova enquiry of the Magistrate as if, the examination of material witnesses without his counsel is illegal and unjust in the light of Secs.273 and 304, Crl.P.C.

(2.) HOWEVER, the said Crl.M.P.No.4505 of 2003 has been strongly contested by the prosecution by saying that the said petition is not at all maintainable and the allegations stated in support of that petition are not at all correct and true and that the said petition itself is nothing but an attempt to delay the progress of the trial of the sessions case to the maximum possible and in a way to cause inconvenience to other connected accused, who are facing the trial under the same sessions case and particularly when the first accused is a Srilanka citzen and case is pending from the year 1993.

(3.) ANOTHER ruling relied on by the petitioner's counsel in Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachala Pradesh 1986 S.C.C. (Crl.) 166 in support of his argument. It is also not applicable to the facts of this case, because the facts in the said ruling are different from this case, inasmuch as free legal aid was not provided to the accused in that case and there is no necessity for the accused to make such request and the Court itself has to provide such free legal assistance. But in this case the petitioner herein has gone to the extent of refusing or not accepting the offer of the Court for providing legal assistance to the petitioner has engaged advocates of his own choice not only in the Sessions Court, C.J.M. Court and also High Court for the purpose of filing transfer petition and he has never sought for free legal aid. When that be so, the conduct and means of the petitioner to engage the advocates of his choice, it is too much on the part of the petitioner now to say in this Crl.M.P.No.4505 of 2003 as if, he has no means to engage the counsel.