Miss Lucy
Try free
← All judgments

Man Singh & Anr vs State Of M.P

Supreme Court24 September 2008Mukundakam Sharma · Arijit Pasayat

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

When a legal aid counsel appointed by the Legal Aid Committee fails to appear on the date fixed before the High Court without justifiable reason, the High Court ought not dismiss the appeal without taking steps to secure the attendance of another counsel or appointing an Amicus Curiae, particularly in cases involving serious offences; the failure to do so constitutes grounds for setting aside the order and remitting the matter for fresh hearing.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITON
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1516 OF 2008(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5051 of 2007)
Man Singh & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of M.P. ...Respondent
JUDGMENT
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned
Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur,
Bench at Indore, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant
who had questioned his conviction for offence punishable
under Section 8/18(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter for short `the Act') and in
1the alternative under Section 8/29/18(b) of the Act and under
Section 8/21(c) and in the alternative 8/29/21(c) and in the
alternative 8/28/2(c) of the Act and sentence of 20 years RI
and fine of rupees two lakhs with a stipulation that in the

event of default of payment of fine each of the

accused/appellants would suffer RI for 5 years. It appears

that when the matter was taken up by the High Court learned

Advocate who was appointed through Legal Aid Committee did

not appear. Learned Single Judge heard the matter with the

assistance of the learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-

State.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

lawyer who was appointed by the Legal Aid Committee did not

appear, when the matter was called, for the reasons best

known to him and the High Court should not have dismissed

the appeal without engaging another counsel or at least

without appointing an Amicus Curiae. Learned counsel for

the respondent-State on the other hand submitted that the

High Court has analysed the relevant evidence including the

2 evidence of PWs 9 and 10, who were the official witnesses. It

is pointed out that Sections 42 and 50 of the Act have no

relevance because the alleged seizure took place in a public

place and search was not of person.

4. We need not deal with the merits of the case as we find

that the learned counsel appointed by the Legal Aid

Committee did not appear on the date fixed before the High

Court. The High Court could have in such circumstances

required the Legal Aid Committee to appoint another counsel.

Considering the seriousness of the offence it would have been

appropriate for the High Court to do so.

5. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order

and remit the matter to the High Court for a fresh hearing.

6. The appeal is allowed.

...........................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

3 ...........................................J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA) New Delhi:

September 24, 2008

4

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free