Free legal aid for indigent accused is part of fair trial rights, and failure to inform the accused vitiates conviction.

An indigent accused facing possible imprisonment has a constitutional right to free legal aid under Article 21, and the trial court must inform him of that entitlement without waiting for an application. Where the accused was not informed and remained unrepresented, the trial became constitutionally defective; the absence of a request for aid did not cure the breach. The conviction and sentence were therefore set aside, and the consequential service dismissal was displaced with reinstatement ordered without back wages and without a fresh trial.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an accused unable to afford counsel in a criminal trial involving possible imprisonment is entitled to free legal aid at State cost and whether the trial court is bound to inform him of that right; (ii) whether failure to provide such legal aid, when the accused was not informed and did not apply for it, vitiates the conviction and related service consequence.

Issue (i): whether an accused unable to afford counsel in a criminal trial involving possible imprisonment is entitled to free legal aid at State cost and whether the trial court is bound to inform him of that right.

Analysis: Free legal assistance to an indigent accused facing deprivation of personal liberty is an essential ingredient of fair procedure and is implicit in Article 21. The right cannot be reduced to a paper entitlement dependent on the accused's own request, because poverty and illiteracy often prevent an accused from knowing or asserting the right. The judicial officer trying the case must therefore inform the accused of the availability of free legal services and ascertain whether he wishes to avail them.

Conclusion: The accused was entitled to free legal aid at State cost, and the court had a duty to inform him of that entitlement.

Issue (ii): whether failure to provide such legal aid, when the accused was not informed and did not apply for it, vitiates the conviction and related service consequence.

Analysis: Where the accused was not informed of his entitlement and was left unrepresented in a trial that could result in imprisonment, the resulting trial is constitutionally defective. The absence of an application for legal aid does not cure the breach. Once the conviction falls, the service dismissal based on that conviction also falls, though the Court balanced relief by directing reinstatement without back wages and by declining a fresh trial.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were set aside as vitiated by a fatal violation of Article 21, and the consequential dismissal from service was displaced with reinstatement ordered without back wages.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the core constitutional issue, the conviction and sentence were quashed, and consequential service relief was granted in modified form without a fresh trial or back wages.

Ratio Decidendi: An indigent accused facing possible imprisonment has a constitutional right to free legal aid under Article 21, and the trial court must inform him of that right without waiting for an application; failure to do so vitiates the conviction.

---