ZAFAR ALAM Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a criminal revision under sections 397/402 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code) against the order dated 27-1-1987 allowing partly the appeal filed by the applicant in a case under section 323, I.P.C. and converting the substantive sentence of imprisonment into a fine of Rs. 400/- and in default directing the applicant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, arising out of the order dated 20-6-86 passed by the Munsif - Magistrate, Azamgarh convicting the applicant under section 323 I.P.C. and awarding the sentence of six months R.I.

(2.) The prosecution story was that on 20-7-1982 at about 5 P.M. the applicant along-with others was laying foundation in the chak of the complainant. The complainants mother reprimanded the applicant, who along with others inflicted injuries on her with lathies. The Magistrate convicted the applicant under section 323, I.P.C. and sentenced him to six months R.I. In appeal by the applicant sentence was reduced and was converted into a fine of Rs. 400/- and in default of payment to undergo six months R.I.

(3.) Sri D.N. Pandey, the learned counsel for the applicant strenuously urged that the doctor was to be examined to prove the injuries but on so many dates he could not come. Hence the case was adjourned on 15-6-1985 when the doctor came but Sri Ashfaq Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant was not present as he had gone for some work in the High Court. An application was moved on behalf of the applicant for adjournment but the same was not allowed. The examination and cross-examination of the doctor continued and on behalf of the applicant some other counsel other than Sri Ashfaq Ahmad. examined the doctor. According to Sri Pandey the other learned counsel was a junior counsel and was not a counsel of the choice of the applicant hence the case of the applicant has been prejudiced as the efficiency of the senior counsel was not permitted to be valid of. He relied on Shambhunath Bhattacharjee v. State of Sikkim1.