RAMU @ RAMLAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. the petitioners have prayed for transfer to the petition as well as appointment of an advocate.

(2.) Briefly stated of the prosecution case is that the petitioners and the applicants in the present case were being proceeded against in the Sessions Trial No.549/2013 and it was their case that the matter had been fixed for framing of charges on 03.01.2014 and without hearing to the Counsel for the petitioners the Court had proceeded to frame the charges against the petitioners. Accused Keku had filed an application dated 15.01.2014 for appointment of advocate of his choice under Section 303 of the Cr.P.C. but the trial Court without considering the application and granting him the opportunity continued the framing of charges and also recorded the statement of witnesses and the petitioners also prayed for transfer of the case to another Court. Being aggrieved the petitioners filed a revision and the Revisional Court had also upheld the framing of charges and hence present petition.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged the fact that petitioner Keku has been denied the right to defend himself and Counsel submitted that his fundamental rights were effected and the entire trial is likely to be vitiated.