TARLOK CHAND MAHAJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER -accused facing trial under sections 452/302 RPC and 3/25 Arms Act seeks to quash order dated 8.5.2001 whereby he has been charge -sheeted by the trial court on his being pleaded not guilty of the alleged commission of offence.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, Mr. J.P. Singh, has at the outset submitted that he is seeking to quash the impugned order only on the ground that he has not been provided opportunity of being heard as mandated by law and is not pressing the other reliefs including the alternative relief for quashing the proceedings in exercise of power u/s 561 -A Cr.P.C.

(3.) THE impugned order to that extent has been challenged on the ground that the trial court has erred in refusing to provide either an opportunity of engaging the service of a lawyer of his choice or to provide a lawyer to the petitioner at State expense for his defence in the trial and has thus violated the mandate of Article 39 -A of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code which guarantee legal aid to an unrepresented accused which also amounts to depriving him of his fundamental right of a fair trial. The other ground set up is that trial court has violated the provisions of sections 268 and 269 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1989 by providing an opportunity of hearing before deciding as to whether a case for charge is made out. The petitioner has not been provided copy of challan or translation version thereof in Hindi language which he understands. It is also one of the grounds that trial court has violated section 267 of the Criminal Procedure Code dealing with the opening of the case for prosecution. Mrs Shahista Hakim has appeared on behalf of respondents. She has stated that the impugned order does not suffer on account of any illegality or impropriety.