SADHAN DUTTA ROY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule issued on a revisional application preferred by two of the accused persons now standing trial on a charge under section 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No. 26 (7) of 1974 its directed against an order dated August 29, 1974, passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alipore. The two accused petitioners made a prayer before the Learned Sessions Judge for appointing Shri Shibapada Banerji and Shri Basudeb Mazumdar, two advocates to defend them at the expense of the State/opposite party in this Rule. Such advocates were very junior advocates. The Learned Sessions Judge took the view that the accused/petitioners cannot have a lawyer of their own choice appointed by the court at the expense of the State. Proceeding to act under section 304 (1) of the new Code of Criminal Procedure he appointed one Shri R. K. Mandal, an Assistant Public Prosecutor as the lawyer to defend the accused/ petitioners at the cost of the, State. The accused/petitioners objected to such an appointment being made and insisted that the lawyers of their choice should be appointed to defend them at the expense of the State. That prayer was not conceded by the Learned Sessions judge and was overruled by the impugned order. Hence, this revisional application.

(2.) THE only question in such circumstances that has been debated before us on behalf of the accused petitioners is as to whether in law the accused petitioners can assert a right to be represented by a lawyer of their own choice appointed by the court at the expense of the State in a criminal prosecution.

(3.) FR. Roy, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has very strongly contended that such a right follows from the provision of section 304 read with section 303 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 22 (1) of the Constitution. Mr. Biswas the learned advocate for the State has seriously contested such a claim and according to Mr. Biswas though the accused/petitioners may have a constitutional as also a statutory right to have themselves defended by a lower of their own choice yet such a right does not extend to the extent of having such lawyers for their defence at the cost to be borne by the State.