HIMCHALSINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HIMACHAL Singh applicant is being tried by the Special Judge, Camp Sabalgarh in Special Case No. 2 of 1986 for various offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He has engaged Shri Bahadur Singh Dhakad, a Senior Counsel to defend himself. On 21-11-1988 the case was fixed for recording evidence. On this date, it appears that Shri Bahadur Singh Dhakad, Counsel of the applicant was seriously ill and therefore, he could not attend the hearing of case. The applicant, therefore, moved an application for adjournment. This application is purported to have been filed under Section 309, Cr. P. C. , but by the impugned order dated 28-11-88 the learned special Judge, rejected the application and while proceeding with the case, examined prosecution witness Sobaransingh.

(2.) SHRI R. P. Goyaner, Advocate appeared on behalf of the applicant only for seeking adjournment, but he was asked by the Court to cross-examine the witness Sobaransingh. As the counsel Shri Goyaner was not prepared with the case, he could not cross-examine the witness. Under these circumstances the witness was discharged and the application for adjournment was also rejected on the ground that the Special case is pending since 1986. The order-sheet does not reveal that it was at the instance of the applicant Himachal Singh, the case was adjourned at any stage. It is against this order that this revision is filed.

(3.) UNDER Article 22 (1) of the Constitution an accused person has been guaranteed with a constitutional right to engage a counsel of his own choice. Similar provision finds place in the Cr. P. C. 1973 as well. Section 303 of the Code also gives this right to the accused person to engage a counsel of his own choice. The applicant Himachal Singh has engaged Shri Bahadur Singh Dhakad who fell ill on 28-11-88. In view of the specific provision of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution and specific provisions of Section 303, Cr. P. C. , 1973, the Court has no power to order for engaging a counsel against the choice of the accused as the right guaranteed, is an inherent right of an accused person to engage a counsel of his choice. This being a valuable right, the Courts are not supposed to interfere with this right lightly when, in the instant case, it has not been found that under the garb of the said right, the accused is misusing the same.