Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi High Court

Failure to Appoint Legal Aid Lawyer Violates Fair Trial: Supreme Court Sets Aside Trial Procedure, Orders De Novo Trial

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, allowed the criminal appeals in the case of Ekene Godwin & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu, emphasizing the necessity of legal representation for a fair trial.

The core issue addressed was the violation of the right to a fair trial due to the absence of legal representation for the appellants during the examination-in-chief of prosecution witnesses. The bench scrutinized the conduct of the Trial Court under the provisions of Sections 419, 420 of the IPC, Sections 66, 43(J), and 66D of the IT Act, and Sections 242 of the CrPC and 138 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The appellants, prosecuted under various sections of the IPC and IT Act, faced trial without legal representation. The High Court had earlier rejected their bail application. The Supreme Court took cognizance of the unusual procedure adopted by the Trial Court in recording the examination-in-chief of 12 prosecution witnesses without legal representation for the appellants.

Justice Oka observed, "Before recording the examination-in-chief of the first prosecution witness, after finding that the appellants-accused had not engaged any Advocate, the Trial Court ought to have provided a legal aid Advocate." Highlighting procedural lapses, the Court noted the importance of an advocate's presence during the examination-in-chief for raising objections to inappropriate questions. The bench criticized the Trial Court for not seeking an extension from the High Court despite being constrained by a time-bound schedule, resulting in a hasty and irregular trial process.

Granting bail to the appellants, the Court mandated a re-trial (de novo) with proper legal representation. Stringent bail conditions were imposed, including the surrender of passports. The Supreme Court's directive for a fresh trial underscores the justice system's commitment to ensuring a fair trial, particularly in the context of legal representation.

Date of Decision: March 18, 2024

Ekene Godwin & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu

Latest Legal News