KARNAIL CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-Karnail Chand, who has been convicted by General Security Force Court and presently undergoing life imprisonment, has misconceivedly filed an application under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to challenge his conviction by General Security Force Court(for short 'GSFC'), which as per him, had held him guilty without appreciating evidence in its true perspective. His plea also is that Court failed to take note of the lacunas in the prosecution case and the evidence brought on file. Through this communication received through Superintendent Jail, which is termed as appeal, the petitioner has submitted that the Trial Court (meaning GSFC) erred in not appreciating the evidence. As per the petitioner, he was wrongly convicted and is pleading innocently that the prosecution version was false. This one page petition was sent to this Court through Jail, would not only be an indication of his poor state, but would show, how an absence of legal advice can deprive a person from raising even challenge to his conviction & sentence and thus deprive him of his right to life & liberty guaranteed under Constitution. This short, crisp misinformed communication was treated as petition and registered as Criminal Writ Petition No. 395 of 2008. This liberal legal approach has come to the rescue of the petitioner, who otherwise would have suffered this sentence & consequence of trial silently in jail without being aware of his right to challenge his conviction & sentence in proper legal manner and the grounds and basis on which this challenge could be made.

(2.) A petition submitted through Jail meant that no one was there to assist either the cause of the petitioner or to assist the court. Here again this Court came to his rescue and requested a counsel of this Court to assist as Amicus Curiae. The counsel due to some undisclosed reasons chose not to appear on some dates necessitating adjournment of this case on number of occasions. He had then appeared only to make a request for adjourning the case. The case was, thus, again adjourned on number of occasions. Courts could certainly expect better assistance from Amicus. Left with no option, the Court ultimately requested to Ms. Tanu Bedi, another counsel of this Court for assistance. The case has, thereafter, been heard.

(3.) LET us first get the hang of the issues agitated as can be noticed from the proceedings of GSFC.