- (1.) . (With him J. R. Mudholkar, J. ) : On a complaint of trespass the police registered a case against the respondents under S. 447 of the Penal Code. The respondents were later arrested by the police and released on the execution of surety bonds whereby the sureties undertook to produce them as required by the police. The case against the respondents was thereafter put up before the Nyaya Panchayat, a Court established under the Madhya Bharat Panchayat Act, 1949. In that Court, fresh bonds were executed by sureties on behalf of the respondents to ensure their presence during the trial. The Nyaya Panchayat, after trial, convicted and sentenced the respondents to a fine of Rs. 75 each. The conviction was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge Barwani. The respondents then moved the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in revision which set aside the conviction. Hence the present appeal.
(2.) Section 63 of the Panchayat Act provides that no legal practitioner shall appear on behalf of or shall plead for or defend any party in any dispute, case or proceeding pending before the Nyaya Panchayat. The High Court observed that in view of the provisions of Art. 22 (1) of the Constitution, the section was void in respect of persons who were arrested. As the respondents had been arrested, it set aside their conviction. The question in this appeal is, whether the section violated Article 22 (1). That provision has to be considered along with Art. 21 of the Constitution and both are set out below: "Art. 21, No. person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Art. 22 (1). No. person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice."
(3.) It seems to us fairly clear that a person arrested has the constitutional right to consult a legal practitioner concerning his arrest. It is also clear that a person arrested has the constitutional right to be defended by a legal practitioner. But, against what is he to be defended We think that the right to be defended by a legal practitioner would include a right to take steps through a legal practitioner for release from the arrest. Now, S. 63 of the Act puts no ban on either of these rights. It cannot be said to be invalid as denying these rights. We may add that the Act is not concerned with arrest and gives no power to arrest.;