The result was that at the end of the trial four of the other accused were acquitted but the appellant and another accused were companyvicted of the offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years.
The appellant thereupon preferred an appeal before the Gauhati High Court.
The appellant was number represented by any lawyer since he was admittedly unable to afford legal representation on account of his poverty and the result was that he companyld number cross examine the witnesses of the prosecution.
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.8.84 of the Gauhati High Court in Crl.
The remaining 5 witnesses were examined by the appellants without any legal assistance.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI, C.J. This appeal by special leave raises a question of companysiderable importance relating to the administration of criminal justice in the companyntry.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.725 of 1985.
The case was tried as a warrant case and at the trial 8 witness, on behalf of the prosecution, were examined.
205 of 1979.
Vijay Hansaria and S.K. Jain for the Appellant.
Revision No.
The facts giving rise to this appeal are number material because the question posed for our companysideration is a pure question of law.
The appellants wished to examine 7 witnesses in defence but out of them two companyld number be examined since they were staying far away and moreover, in the opinion of the companyrt, they were number material witnesses.
Abdul Khader, G. Chandra and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondent.
The appellants and five other accused were charged in the companyrt of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley, Anini, Arunachal Pradesh for an offence under section 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that the appellants and the other five accused threatened Shri H.S. Kohli, Assistant Engineer, Central Public Works Department, Anini with a view to companypelling him to cancel the transfer orders of the accused which had been passed by him.
But even so the broad facts may be briefly set out since they provide the back drop against which the question of law arises for companysideration.
