ELANATH SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Seminal question of considerable constitutional importance arises for consideration in this revision otherwise a run of the-mill case.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this revision are not material for the purpose of answering the question under consideration. A bare outline, however, may be given. The two petitioners were found in possession of 139 Kgs. of Ganja. They were produced by the Excise Authority before the Magistrate on 16-8-1983 when cognizance was taken and on their admission of guilt, they were convicted under section 47(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act read with section 55 thereof and were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand), in default, to further undergo S.I. for six months each. Appeal carried by them was heard ex parte in the absence of their lawyer and dismissed. In the revision, Shri P.K. Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has raised the question of considerable importance relating to administration of criminal justice in subordinate Courts urging that by failure of the State and the Judiciary to provide legal assistance to the petitioners, who were not represented by a lawyer, the guarantee enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed and the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced substantively without a just, fair and reasonable trial. He has also indicted the conduct of the proceeding as violative of the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India which is binding on all Courts under article 141 of the Constitution.

(3.) Article 21 insists that no man shall be deprived on his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. Since Maneka Gandhi's case1 the scope as well as the ambit of the guarantee has expanded from case to case in different facts and situations and it has been held that the principle of reasonableness, which is an essential element of equality of non-arbitrariness, pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence and the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must answer the test of reasonableness in order to be in conformity with Article 14. It has been observed: