Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

RANCHOD MATHUR WASAWA versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided
15 October 1973
Judges listed
V.R. KRISHNA IYER (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1974] 2 S.C.R. 72 · 1973 INSC 188
Also cited as
  • AIR 1974 SC 1143 (3 citing judgments)
  • (1974) 3 SCC 581 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

KRISHNA IYER, J .-A petition from jail-this is one-demands closer judicial care and we have with deep concern scanned the mate· rials placed before us in the light of the grounds of grievances urged in this appeal. We find no reason to disagree with the findings of guilt and refuse special leave. Even so, we are disturbed, having a look at the proceedings in this case, that the sessions judges do not view with sufficient seriousness the need to appoint State counsel for undefended accused in grave cases. Indigence should never be a ground for denying fair trial or equal justice. Therefore, particular attention should be paid to appoint competent adv,ocates, equal to handling the complex cases-not patronising gestures to raw entrants to the Bar. Sufficient time and complete papers should also be made available, so that the advocate chosen may serve the cause of justice with all the help at his command. In the present case, the · accused has made a grievance that the amicus curiae came into picture only on the day the trial commenced. This is an unfortunate feature. Nevertheless, we are satisfied A that by postponing the examination of the important witnesses to the next day the learned Judge h~Jped councel to equip himself fully. We are also sa:tisfied from a perusal of the papers that the cross·examina• tion has not suffered for want of time or facility for counsel for the accused. We should, however, emphasize that in all these ca~s there should be a sensitive approach made by the court to see that the accused felt confident that his counsel chosen by the court has had adequate time and material to defend him properly. Wit11 these observations, we dismissed the petition. P.B.R. Pe1ition dismissed.

pp. 72–73, margin E