As per s.303 Cr.P.C Kasab is entitled to be defended by a pleader of his choice. Suppose now he reconsiders his earlier decision and now he insist that he be defended by Kazmi for the balance of the trial, What would be the legal consequence?
Mr. Menon, You have raised an intresting question, but other question is Kasab is not even aware that he has this right. As I said earlier, the case may be remanded back for retrial on these grounds alone. Ignorance of law is no excuse .It is presumed that law of the land is known by the adivasi living in a remote distant forest, as soon as the law is passed. My question is does this presumption extend to a person who is not a citizen of India?
Sir - I think you have slightly mixed up. Ignorence of law is no excuse is a principal equally applicable for citizen of India and non citizen. This principal operates against the accused.
I have raised this question to point out that that the decision to sack Kazmi is erroneous. If as I suggested, it does really happen, then wont it reflect adversly (to put it mildly) on the presiding officer. Then in such a situation it would be Kazmi himself who would be indispensable to the Judicary by coming in its aid by refusing to represent Kasab, maybe at the cost of his professional ethics.
Personal animosity won't do Mr. Gandhi. Kasab is being tried under the law of the land. If hatred is in our mind, he ought to be hanged by the nearest lamp post. Custodial deaths in police lock up abound. Why don't we support it?
I request friends not to allow their hearts to rule over mind.