Page 90 - test_constitution 100

90
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ART. 22
Right to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice — Janardhan Reddy and Others v State of Hyderabad and Others, AIR 1951 SC 217 : 1952 Cri. L.J. 736 (SC).
Ram Sarup v Union of India and Another, AIR 1965 SC 247 : 1965(1) Cri. L.J. 236 (SC).
Advisory Board — A.K. Roy v Union of India and Another, AIR 1982 SC 710 : (1982)1 SCC 271 : 1982 Cri. L.J. 340 (SC).
State of Andhra Pradesh and Another v Balajangam Subbarajamma, AIR 1989 SC 389 : (1989)1 SCC 193 : 1989 Cri. L.J. 853 (SC).
Johney D’Couto v State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1988 SC 109 : (1988)1 SCC 116 : 1988 Cri. L.J. 178 (SC).
Vijay Kumar v Union of India and Others, AIR 1988 SC 934 : (1988)2 SCC 57 : 1988 Cri. L.J. 951 (SC).
Abdul Latif Abdul Wahab Sheikh v B.K. Jha and Another, AIR 1987 SC 725 : (1987)2 SCC 22 : 1987 Cri. L.J. 700 (SC).
Navalshankar Ishwarlal Dave and Another v State of Gujarat and Others, AIR 1994 SC 1496 : 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 754 : 1994 Cri. L.J. 2170 (SC).
An arrested/detained person has right to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. (K. Vijaya Lakshmi v State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2013 SC 3589 : (2013)5 SCC 489).
Section 151 of the Cr. P.C. only provides for arrest of a person to prevent the commission of a cognizable offence by him. The provision by no stretch of imagination can be said to be either arbitrary or unreasonable or infringing upon the fundamental rights of a citizen under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. (Ahmed Noormohmed Bhatti v State of Gujarat, AIR 2005 SC 2115 : (2005)3 SCC 647).
An accused cannot claim aid of lawyer during police interrogation. (Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v State of Maharashtra, AIR 2012 SC 3565 : (2012)9 SCC 1).
Failure to provide legal aid to accused at the time of recording confession (pre trial stage) does not vitiate trial. (Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v State of Maharashtra, AIR 2012 SC 3565 : (2012)9 SCC 1).
Resolution of the Bar Association that no lawyer will defend certain accused person is against the provisions of the Constitution and ethics. (A.S. Mohammed Rafi v State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2011 SC 308 : (2011)1 SCC 688).
A criminal case against an accused cannot be decided against him in the absence of counsel to assist him. It violates Article 21. The Court should appoint amicus curie to defend the accused. (Mohd. Sukur Ali v State of Assam, AIR 2011 SC 1222 : (2011)4 SCC 729).
Where the amicus curie appointed by the Court conducted the defence properly, held, it could not be said that the accused was denied facility of effective defence. (State (NCT of Delhi) v Navjot Sandhu, AIR 2005 SC 3820 : (2005)11 SCC 600 : 2005 AIR SCW 4148).
A KLJ PUBLICATION