Asim Kumar Roy, J. - (1.) The present petitioners have been facing their trial of a charge under Ss. 307/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 1st Court, Sealdah. During the trial initially the petitioners were defended by a lawyer of their own choice and by July 8, 2009 the examination of total five prosecution witnesses was concluded. Thereafter, on August 26, 2009 the learned defence Counsel moved an application before the Trial Court expressing his desire to retire from the case. Upon such application being moved the Trial Court allowed the prayer of the defence counsel and he was discharged. While making such order the Learned Trial Court engaged one Mr. P. Saha, a lawyer from the State Panel to defend the accused in the trial. However, on the very next day, i.e., on August 27, 2009 on behalf of the accused persons an application was moved expressing their desire to engage a new lawyer of their choice to defend them during the rest of the trial and for time for taking necessary steps in that regard. But no order was passed on such application. Thereafter, on the next date fixed for trial on September 11, 2009 another application was moved on behalf of the defence renewing their prayer for time on the ground of engaging a lawyer of their choice, but no order was passed as regards to the same and on that day three witnesses, viz., three doctors were examined as P.W. 7, P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 by the prosecution and they were also cross -examined on behalf of the defence by the lawyer engaged by the Court and November 7, 2009 two separate applications, both under Sec. 231(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure were moved on behalf of the accused/petitioners simultaneously. While in the first application a prayer was made for recalling of the P.W. 7, P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 for their cross -examination afresh by the lawyer to be engaged by the defence of their own choice, in the other application a prayer was made for recalling P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 for their further cross -examination on the ground they were not cross -examined effectively. However, on that day the victim Prem Kumar Tewari was examined by the prosecution as P.W. 10 and was discharged after his cross -examination by the lawyer engaged by the Court and next date fixed for examination of the Investigating Officer of the case and on the self -same day the Court rejected the petitioners' application under Sec. 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the instant criminal revisional application, the petitioners challenged the said orders whereby their applications under Sec. 231(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected by the Trial Court.
(2.) The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners vehemently urged before this Court that the accused have every right to engage a lawyer of their own choice to defend them in a criminal trial. He further submitted denial of such right would not only cause serious prejudice to the accused same would result in complete failure of justice. According to the learned advocate of the petitioners on his appreciation the cross -examination of P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 5, P.W. 7, P.W. 8 and P.W. 9, was never done effectively. Accordingly, the learned advocate of the petitioners prayed for permitting the defence to further cross -examine P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 and for cross -examining afresh P.W. 7, P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 including the P.W. 10, the victim by the lawyer to be engaged by the defence of their choice.
(3.) Heard the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the impugned order and other materials on record.;