SHRICHAND Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision by the accused is directed against appellate judgment maintaining his conviction and sentence to a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to simple imprisonment for one month, for the offence under S. 228, I.P.C.

(2.) The appellant had filed a civil suit which was pending in the Court of Shri A. H. Shaikh Patel, Civil Judge, Khurai. When that suit was taken up on one of the dates of hearing i.e. on 15-2-1982, it was adjourned by the learned Civil Judge to next date in the absence of the applicant and his counsel. The applicant showed himself up shortly afterwards. He was agitated to find that the case had boon adjourned. He protested to the learned Civil Judge and instated that his case was taken up for hearing on that date itself. The learned Civil Judge felt that in the manner of making protest, and in refusing to leave the Court room even after direction by the Court, the applicant had caused interruption while the Judge was sitting in judicial proceeding. The learned Civil Judge then drew up summary proceedings as contemplated by S. 345, Criminal Procedure Code, and before the close of the day, the learned Civil Judge passed an order convicting the applicant of the offence under S. 228, I.P.C. and sentencing him to a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to simple imprisonment for one month. The appeal carried by the applicant against his conviction and sentence to the Court of Session was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai by judgment dated 19-2-1986. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision has been filed.

(3.) Arguing in support of the revision, Shri Rakesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicant, first contended that the applicant was not provided with a counsel in the summary proceeding to defend himself, which constituted a violation of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution guaranteeing to every person a reasonable, fair and just procedure before he could be deprived of his life or personal liberty. Placing reliance on the decisions in Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, AIR 1986 SC 991, Himachal Singh v. State of M.P., 1986 JLJ 256 and State of M.P. v. Champalal, 1988 (1) WN 120, the learned counsel contended that the applicant was not required to make an application in writing or even orally request for a counsel but the learned Civil Judge was himself bound to inform the applicant that he was entitled to free legal assistance at the cost of the State, if he was unable to engage a lawyer on account of his indigence or poverty or incommunicado situation. Since the learned Civil Judge had failed to give that information and also failed to provide a counsel to the applicant in his defence, the proceedings in which the impugned order was passed were vitiated.