http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: RANCHOD MATHUR WASAWA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF GUJARAT

DATE OF JUDGMENT15/10/1973

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH

CITATION:  1974 AIR 1143            1974 SCR  (2)  72  1974 SCC  (3) 581

ACT: Amicus  Curioe-Criminal  trial and  practice-Appointment  of State counsel to defend accused-How should be done.

HEADNOTE: Indigence should never be a ground for denying a fair  trial or equal justice.  Therefore, particular attention should be paid  to appoint competent advocates equal to  handling  the complex  cases.  Sufficient time and complete papers  should also be made available so that the advocate chosen may serve the  cause of justice with all the hell) at his  command  so that the accused may feel confident that his counsel, chosen by  the court, has had adequate time and material to  defend him properly. [72G-H] In  the present case the accused had made a  grievance  that amicus  curioe  came into the picture only on  the  day  the trial  commenced.   Though  this is  unfortunate  the  trial court, by postponing examination of the important  witnesses to  the next day, helped counsel to equip himself fully  and the cross-examination had not suffered. [73A]

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Petition for special leave to appeal (Crl.) No. 674 of 1973. From  the judgment and order dated 28th September,  1972  of the, Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal  No. 966 of 1971. The Order of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA  IYER, J.-A petition from jail this  is  one-demands closer  judicial care and we have with deep concern  scanned the  materials placed before us in the light of the  grounds of  grievances urged in this appeal.  We find no  reason  to disagree  with  the, findings of guilt  and  refuse  special leave.   Even  so, we are disturbed, having a  look  at  the proceedings  in this case, that the sessions judges  do  not view  with sufficient seriousness the need to appoint  State counsel  for undefended accused in grave  cases.   Indigence should  never  be a ground for denying fair trial  or  equal justice.   Therefore particular attention should be paid  to appoint  competent advocates, equal to handling the  complex

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

cases-not patronising gestures to raw entrants ’to the  Bar. Sufficient  time  and complete, papers should also  be  made available,  so that the advocate chosen may serve the  cause of justice with all the help at his command.  In the present case,  the  accused  has made a grievance  that  the  amicus curioe  came  into picture only on the day  the  trial  com- menced.   This is an unfortunate feature.  Nevertheless,  we are satisfied 73 that   by  postponing  the  examination  of  the   important witnesses  to the next day the learned Judge helped  counsel to  equip  himself  fully.  We are  also  satisfied  from  a perusal  of  the papers that the cross-examination  has  not suffered  for want of time or facility for counsel for  the, accused.   We should, however, emphasize that in  all  these cases there should be a sensitive approach made by the court to  see  that the accused felt confident  that  his  counsel chosen  by the court has had adequate time and  material  to defend him properly.  With these observations, we  dismissed the petition. P.B.R.                            Petition dismissed. 74