- (1.) The present petitioner, who has been facing his trial along with others of a charge under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, was defended in the said trial by a lawyer engaged by the Court at the expenses of the State. However, after examination of first 5 witnesses was over and on the date fixed for examination of P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 the petitioner prayed for time expressing his desire to engage a lawyer of his own choice and at his expenses. However, the Trial Court rejected such prayer and proceeded with the trial. Aggrieved by such order the petitioner now moved the instant criminal revision.
(2.) Heard Mr. Joymalya Bagchi, the learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. Somnath Banerjee for the defactocomplainant and Mr. Abhijit Auddy for the State.
(3.) From perusal of the impugned order it appears the Learned Trial Court has elaborately discussed and assigned reasons for not allowing the petitioners prayer for adjournment for engaging a lawyer for his defence of his own choice and at his expenses. Undoubtedly, the right to defend in a trial is a very valuable right of an accused. The right of the accused to be defended by a lawyer of his choice is not only guaranteed under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution but such right is also the mandate of Section 303 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At the top of everything, when an accused prayed for time for changing his lawyer engaged at the expenses of State and to defend himself by a lawyer of his own choice at his own expenses for ends of justice same ought not to be denied. However, of course no accused can be permitted to drag a sessions trial on the pretext of changing his lawyer one after another and certainly in such case such attempt of an accused ought to be resisted.;