Judgments

M. H. HOSKOT VS STATE OF MAHARASTRA : CASE SUMMARY

The Supreme Court in M. H. Hoskot Vs. State of Maharastra (1878)AIR 1548 held that indigent prisoners have to be provided free services of lawyers for filing appeal.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Dr. Hoskot  was  a reader in Saurastra University. Dr. Hoskot approached Dabholkar, a block maker of Bombay  and placed an order to prepare an embossing seal in the name of Karnataka University, Dharwar and forged a letter of authority purporting to have been signed by the personal assistant to the Vice-chancellor of the said University authorizing him to get the seal made.  Dabholkar had doubts and gave information to police. The Session Court convicted Dr. Hoskot under Section 417 R/w 511 IPC, Section 467 IPC, Section 468 IPC, and Section 471 R/w 467 IPC but awarded soft sentence of simple imprisonment till rising of the court and some fine. High Court enhanced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment of three years.

High Court judgment was pronounced in 1973 but the SLP before the Supreme Court was filed in 1978. Petitioner underwent full time of imprisonment during this period. As per the Petitioner delay was on account of non-service of copy of judgment of the High Court.

FINDINGS OF THE SURPEME COURT

The Supreme Court refused to entertain the Special Leave Petition on merit in light of concurrent finding of Sessions Court and the High Court, but the Supreme Court passed observation on two aspects.

The Supreme Court observed that the trial judge has confused between correctional approach to prison treatment and nominal punishment verging on decriminalization of serious social offences. The first is basic and the second is pathetic. Court which ignores the grave injury to society implicit in economic crimes by the upper-berth “mafia” ill serves social justice. Soft sentencing justice is gross injustice where many innocents are the potential victims. Coddling is not correctional any more than torture is deterrent.

The Supreme Court also dealt with legal aid to prisoners. The Supreme Court observed that most prisoners in this country belongs to the lower, illiterate bracket, suffer silent deprivation of liberty caused by unreasonableness, arbitrariness and unfair procedures behind the “stone walls” and “iron bars”.

The Supreme Court observed the “procedure” mentioned in the Article 21 means fair not formal procedure. One component of fair procedure is natural justice. A first appeal from the Sessions Court to the High Court as provided in the Criminal Procedure Code, manifests this value upheld in Article 21. An effective right to appeal has two components – (i) service of a copy of the judgment to the prisoner in time to file an appeal and (ii) provision of free legal services to a prisoner who is indigent or otherwise disabled form securing legal assistance where the ends of justice call for such service.

The Supreme Court noted that free legal services to the needy is part of English criminal justice system. In USA, strengthened by the Powell, Gideon, and Hamlin cases, a counsel for the accused in the more serious class of classes which threaten a person with imprisonment is regarded as an essential component of the administration of criminal justice and as part of procedure fair-play.

The Supreme Court held that if a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment, is virtually unable to exercise his constitutional and statutory right of appeal, inclusive of special leave to appeal for want of legal assistance, there is implicit in the Court under Article 142, R/w Article 21 and 39A of the Constitution, power to assign counsel for such imprisoned individual for doing complete justice. The Supreme Court directed that  a free transcript of judgment while sentencing a person to prison term shall be delivered to the convict. If such order is delivered to jail authorities, order shall be delivered to the convict against written acknowledgement. Where prisoner wants to file appeal or revision, every facility for exercise of that right shall be made available by the Jail Administration. If prisoner is disabled to engage a counsel due to indigence or other reasons, Court shall assign competent counsel. State shall pay to the counsel tendering  legal aid as fixed by the Court.

_______________________________________________

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate based at Delhi. He has rich experience in civil, criminal, commercial, arbitration and corporate insolvency matters. He regularly appears before District Courts, NCLT, NCLAT, High Court and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *