Legal Provisions of Section 303 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), India.
Right of person against whom proceedings are instituted to be defended:
The section confers a right on the accused person to be defended by a counsel of his choice, and if he does not have sufficient means to engage a lawyer, Section 304 requires the Court under certain circumstances to arrange lawyer for his defence at the expense of the State. A new Article 39-A inserted in the Constitution as one of the Directive Principles of State policy recognizes in unequivocal terms that it is the duty of the State to provide free legal aid to the indigent accused in order to ensure that equal opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic disabilities.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The Supreme Court in Janardan Reddy v. State, held that the provisions of Section 303 of the Code are to be construed liberally in favour of the accused and must be read along with the rules made by the High Court circulars and orders issued by it in this regard.
It must be stated that this section applies not only to the person accused of an offence but also to any person against whom proceedings such as maintenance of wives and children or security for keeping the peace and for good behaviour etc. are instituted under the Code in any Criminal Court.
Article 22 of the Constitution also confers on a person, who is arrested, the right to consult and to be defended by a practitioner of his choice. The provision is intended to afford an opportunity of fair trial to the accused person.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In Bashira v. State, the Supreme Court observed that no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to the time which must elapse between the appointment of the counsel and the beginning of the trial, but keeping in view the circumstances of the case, the Court of Session must ensure that the time granted to the counsel is sufficient enough to prepare for the defence of the accused person.
In Simranjeet Singh Mann v. Union of India a political leader moved a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of conviction of the assailants of General Vaidya. Dismissing the petition, the Supreme Court held that a total stranger to the trial has no locus standi whatsoever to question the correctness of the conviction.
Image Source : luna.edu