* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 8th January, 2013
+ CRL.REV.P. 629/2012
ASHOK KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Medhanshu Tripathi, Adv. with
Mr. Harish Sharma, Adv.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) CRL.REV.P. 629/2012 and Crl.MA 18714/2012 (stay)
1. The Petitioner takes exception to the order dated 03.08.2012 whereby certain documents were put for admission to the Petitioner in the absence of his counsel. Relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:-
"..... The accused has admitted the proceedings under Section 164 Cr.P.C., his own medical examination and also the FSL Report in this case. His statement has been recorded separately to this effect in view of which Ld. MM, the doctor who had prepared the MLC of the accused and the witnesses from the FSL, need not be called for examination....."Crl.Rev.P.629/2012 Page 1 of 2
2. The learned (ASJ) noticed that the counsel for the Petitioner was not present even on the previous date of hearing (i.e. prior to 03.08.2012) and, therefore, proceeded to put the documents to the Petitioner.
3. Admittedly, the Petitioner was facing trial for a serious offence under Section 376 IPC. The learned ASJ ought to have provided an Amicus if she wanted to proceed with the case in the absence of the defence counsel on that very day.
4. The Petitioner's grievance that he was prejudiced and deprived of legal assistance at the time of putting the documents cannot said to be unfounded.
5. In the circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The same is set aside. The documents shall be again put to the Petitioner for admission/denial in presence of his counsel. Previous admission shall be of no consequence.
6. The Petition is allowed in above terms.
7. A copy of the order be sent to the Trial Court.
(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE JANUARY 08, 2013 vk Crl.Rev.P.629/2012 Page 2 of 2