PYAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision under Sections 397, 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short hereinafter referred as Code), challenging the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain and Special Judge (NDPS Act), on 6-12-2005 in Sessions Trial No. 200/2005 whereby the learned Court has ordered to file the power submitted by Shri R.C. Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Pyar Singh in that case.

(2.) Accused Pyar Singh (applicant in the present revision) and some others were being tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge for offence punishable under Sections 397,450, 506(b) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. At the time of commencement of the proceedings before the learned Sessions Judge the applicant was not in a position to engage a counsel and, therefore, one Mr. B. M. Sharma was appointed to defend the applicant in the sessions trial. Later on applicant engaged Shri R. C. Pandey and his companions to appear, act and plead for him in the sessions trial. Shri R. C. Pandey Advocate submitted his memo of appearance in the case and also filed application for re- ' leasing the applicant on temporary bail. The permission was granted by the learned trial Court and thereafter, the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence. On 5-12-2005 Shri R. C. Pandey Advocate and his companions submitted the Vakalatnama duly signed by the applicant before the learned trial Court then Mr. B. M. Sharma, Advocate who was appointed by District Legal Services Authority for appellant raised certain objections. The learned Court vide impugned order held that to Mr. B.M. Sharma Advocate has already appointed to defend the applicant in the sessions case on his prayer, when he does not possess sufficient means to engage his private counsel then permission to engage a private counsel cannot be granted. The learned Judge referred Regulation 33 of the M. P. Legal Services Authorities Regulations, 1997. (Regulations as made by M.P. State Legal Services Authority in consultation with the Chief Justice exercising powers conferred by Section 29 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1997). The learned Judge referring Regulation 33 held that :-

(3.) On the basis on this finding the Vakalatnama filed by Shri Pandey, Advocate was ordered to be filed and he was not permitted to appear, plead and act on behalf of applicant Pyar Singh.