https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276093 In a capital trial, the procedural safeguard requiring appointment of counsel for an unrepresented accused must be effective, not merely formal. Rule 37 of the General Rules (Criminal), 1957 was treated as a mandatory statutory safeguard, and the SC held that counsel must receive the papers and sufficient time to prepare the defence. Appointment of amicus curiae on the day trial commenced, followed by immediate recording of evidence, did not satisfy that requirement. The Court further held that such a denial of the safeguard violates Article 21, and separate proof of prejudice is unnecessary where the protection itself is withheld. The conviction and sentence were set aside and the matter remitted for a fresh trial. en-us Fri, 19 Apr 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Mar 2022 14:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276093 In a capital trial, the procedural safeguard requiring appointment of counsel for an unrepresented accused must be effective, not merely formal. Rule 37 of the General Rules (Criminal), 1957 was treated as a mandatory statutory safeguard, and the SC held that counsel must receive the papers and sufficient time to prepare the defence. Appointment of amicus curiae on the day trial commenced, followed by immediate recording of evidence, did not satisfy that requirement. The Court further held that such a denial of the safeguard violates Article 21, and separate proof of prejudice is unnecessary where the protection itself is withheld. The conviction and sentence were set aside and the matter remitted for a fresh trial. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 19 Apr 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276093