AIR 1966 SUPREME COURT 1910 ::MadLJ(Cri) 487 ::1966 Mah LJ 913 ::1966 MPLJ 961 ::1967 JabLJ 983 ::1967 2 SCJ 33 ::1966 2 SCWR 192

Supreme Court Of India

(From Madhya Pradesh)*

Hon'ble Judge(s): Ajit Kumar Sarkar, M. Hidayatullah, J. R. Mudholkar, R. S. Bachawat, J. M. Shelat , JJJ

(A) Constitution of India , Art.22(1)— Right of arrested person to be defended by legal practitioner of his choice - Scope - Madhya Bharat Panchayat Act (58 of 1949), S. 63 - Validity. AIR 1952 All 924 and AIR 1957 Punj 149 and AIR 1957 Orissa 281, Doubted. Madhya Bharat Panchayat Act (58 of 1949) , S.63— Per Bachawat, Shelat and Hidayatullah, JJ.; Sarkar, C. J., and Mudholkar, J. contra : Section 63 of the Madhya Bharat Panchayat Act, 1949 is violative of Art. 22 (1) and is void to the extent it denies any person who is arrested the right to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice in any trial of the crime for which he is arrested.(Para 28 42) @page-SC1911 Per Bachawat and Shelat, JJ. : There is no warrant for giving a restricted interpretation to the second part of the clause by reference to Art. 21 and for saying that the right to be defended by counsel is limited to a trial in which the arrested person is in jeopardy of being sentenced to death or to a term of imprisonment. The suggestion that the right of defence by counsel given by Art. 22 (1) does not extend to a trial of an offence before the Nyaya Panchayat because the Madhya Bharat Panchayat Act, 1949 does not authorise any arrest and, as a matter of fact, the respondents were arrested by the ....