in some cases everyone has to agree as per the rules framed by the law in our country not only you but everyone
and before making any statement i make my self confident about the STATEMENT AND THEN ONLY I WILL ANSWER and never critisize any one like in in public forum R S Rashmi
"Sorry to say - but whatever you have said is totally incorrect and misleading"
go through this statements which are made by our law commission
Legal aid at State expense in certain cases
This is not a right available to all the accused but to certain category of accused as a privilege. So where, in a trial before the Court of Session, the accused is not represented by a pleader, and the court believes that he does not have sufficient means to engage a pleader, it shall assign a pleader for his defence at the expense of the State, under section 304 of CrPC.
Section 304 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
304. Legal aid to accused at State expense in certain cases.
(1) Where, in a trial before the Court of Session, the accused is not represented by a pleader, and where it appears to the Court that the accused has not sufficient means to engage a pleader, the Court shall assign a pleader for his defence at the expense of the State.
(2) The High Court may, with the previous approval of the State Government, make rules providing for-
(a) the mode of selecting pleaders for defence under sub- section (1);
(b) the facilities to be allowed to such pleaders by the Courts;
(c) the fees payable to such pleaders by the Government, and generally, for carrying out the purposes of sub- section (1).
(3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that, as from such date as may be specified in the notification, the provisions of sub- sections (1) and (2) shall apply in relation to any class of trials before other Courts in the State as they apply in relation to trials before Courts of Session.
Section 304 of the Cr.P.C.- Legal aid to accused at State expense in certain cases. - Availing assistance of a lawyer to defend is fundamental right of an accused.
The honourable Supreme Court of India while deciding CRIMINAL APPEAL NO . 1091 OF 2006 filed by Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali has confirmed the right to fair trial as a fundamental right of an accused. The honourable Court, however, at the same time has held that, mere delay in trial cannot be a ground by itself to justify discontinuance of prosecution or dismissal of indictment. The honourable Supreme Court has further held that, the factors concerning the accused’s right to speedy trial have to be weighed vis-a-vis the impact of the crime on society and the confidence of the people in judicial system. On 30.12.1997 at about 6.20 p.m. one Blueline Bus No. DL-1P-3088 carrying passengers on its route to Nangloi from Ajmeri Gate stopped at Rampura Bus Stand at Rohtak Road for passengers to disembark. The moment the bus stopped, an explosion took place inside the bus. The incident resulted in death of four persons and injury to twenty-four persons. The FIR of the incident was registered and investigation into the crime commenced. On completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against four accused persons – one of them being the present appellant, a national of Pakistan – for the commission of offences under Sections 302/307/120- B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The appellant and the other three accused were committed to the Court of Session. The three accused other than the appellant before the honourable Supreme Court were discharged by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. The appellant was charged under Sections 302/307 IPC and Section 3 and, in the alternative, under Section 4(b) of the ES Act, and was then convicted and was awarded death sentence, which was confirmed by the honourable Delhi High Court. The honourable Supreme Court of India has declared that, the necessity of a counsel in a criminal trial is so vital and imperative that the failure of the trial court to make an effective appointment of counsel amounts to denial of due process of law. Absence of fair and proper trial would be violation of fundamental principles of judicial procedure on account of breach of mandatory provisions of Section 304 Cr.P.C. The honourable Supreme Court has directed de-novo trial of the accused from the stage of prosecution evidence.
Does that mean this isn't applicable to Sessions trial? Also S.226 Cr.P.C. expressly states that a sessions trial must be conducted by a Public Prosecutor....
