The freedom of a citizen cannot be taken away in this way, the Supreme Court has said in annulling the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana that had rejected a guilty plea filed by a man on the grounds that his lawyer had been absent four times during listening. The superior court noted that the superior court made a manifest error in rejecting the review in absentia and should have appointed another attorney as amicus curiae to assist him in the matter related to the conviction under the Gun Act.
In our opinion, the higher court made a manifest error in rejecting the review in absentia, on the grounds that appellant’s attorney had been absent on the previous four occasions, said a court headed by Judge DY Chandrachud. Since the higher court review stemmed from a conviction order under the Gun Act, the higher court should have appointed an amicus curiae in the absence of a lawyer, who has been hired by the legal services authority, Rohtak. The freedom of a citizen cannot be taken away in this way, said the magistracy, also made up of judges Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee, in their order of November 16. The high court allowed the appeal filed by the man and overturned the high court orders of February 11 and July 16.
On February 11, the higher court had thrown out the guilty plea filed by the man challenging his conviction saying that reading the file shows that this review has been taken into account six times, including today. On four occasions, no one came forward to represent the petitioner in a period of approximately one year and four months. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that the petitioner or his attorney is no longer interested in continuing with this review. Fired for lack of prosecution. Subsequently, on July 16, the superior court dismissed the request for restitution of the guilty plea, saying that no grounds for restitution had been established. The man, through his lawyer MK Ghosh, had approached the high court against the order of the high court.
He was convicted of the offense punishable under the Arms Law by a lower court in January 2015 and was sentenced to three years in prison. A court of sessions upheld his conviction in July 2017, after which he was transferred to the higher court. During the process of his declaration in the superior court, he was granted bail in April 2018.
The high court, while overriding the orders of the high court, restored its review. Given that during the processing of the special license request, the appellant was admitted to bail by this court and the appellant was free on bail during the processing of the review before the higher court, the appellant’s extension order released Bail will remain in force pending. provision for review by the higher court. Appellant will cooperate in disposing of the review, the bank said.
.
