MAHENDRA RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are a host of lawyers whose names appear in the cause list as Advocates holding powers on behalf of the appellants of the three appeals. In spite of sending words no one appears. When we resumed out seat today Sri Manish Kumar, Advocate, appeared and communicated to us that Shri Pushkar Narain Shahi, whose name also appears in the array of the advocates for the appellants, does not hold brief on behalf of any of the appellants. We requested Sri Kumar to inform Sri Shahi to personally inform us and, accordingly, Sri Shahi appeared before us and submitted that at the time of being initiated into law- practice as a member of one of the Bar Associations of the Court, Senior counsel late S.B.N.Singh could have obtained his signature on the power. The fact was that Shri Shahi was neither the custodian of the brief nor has any knowledge about it. Under such circumstances we are forced to look for an amicus curiae. Sri Anil Kumar Singh was present in Court and he offered to assist us and, accordingly, we appoint him as an amicus curiae, on behalf of appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 216 of 1988and Sri Niraj Kumar, Advocate, in remaining two appeals.

(2.) WE may appoint amicus curiae for the appellants but the problem remains before us is that who should be appointed as an amicus curiae for the State as well, as none of its counsel is present in Court to render assistance to us. WE believe that hearing the parties, especially the State would be a prerogative of its counsel, if he appears, as it appears from section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. WE, as such, have proceeded to hear and dispose of the batch of three criminal appeals.

(3.) THE defence of the appellants was of false implication on account of the land dispute and, further, that no occurrence in the manner as alleged had taken place at the place of occurrence.