Raghavan, J.-The appeal is by a person convicted of murder and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the Sessions Judge of Ernakulam. The revision petition is by the State praying that this Court be pleased to enhance the sentence to one of death. 2. When these cases came up for hearing, the Counsel of the appellant argued that considerable prejudice was caused to the appellant in his defence before the Sessions Court in that the Sessions Judge not having allowed sufficient time for the defence Counsel to prepare the brief, consult the apellant, if necessary, and take instructions from him, and also in not engaging a Counsel of the appellant’s choice as required by the Kerala Legal Aid (to the poor) Rules, 1958. The Counsel also brought to our notice an application filed by the appellant before the Sessions Judge on 25th May, 1970 to which date the Sessions case stood posted. 3. Now, 25th May was the reopening day of the Court after the mid-summer recess; but, due to the demise of an Hon’ble Minister of the Union Government, the day was declared a holiday. The case was adjourned to the next day; and we find on the docket of the appellant’s petition an order passed by the Sessions Judge on 26th May, 1970 at 10-45 A. M. The prayer in the petition was that the Court be pleased to appoint Sri A.K. Balakrishnan Nair who appeared for the appellant in the Preliminary Enquiry; and the order by the Sessions Judge is: “Brought to my notice only now. Mr. Sukumara Menon is appointed to defend the accused.” And the trial commenced the same day. The B-diary relating to the case is also before us, which notes for 25th May that the day was a holiday and the Sessions case was adjourned to 26th. For 26th the entry is that the accused was produced, charges were framed, read over and explained; the accused pleaded not guilty, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined-in-chief, Exhibit P-1 to P-3 were marked and the cross-examination was postponed as the defence Counsel was engaged only that day. The entry concludes that for further examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 and other witnesses the case was adjourned to the next day. The next day, the 27th the accused was produced, P.Ws.1 and 2 were cross-examined and the trial continued. 4. The entry concludes that for further examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 and other witnesses the case was adjourned to the next day. The next day, the 27th the accused was produced, P.Ws.1 and 2 were cross-examined and the trial continued. 4. We do not propose to refer to the two or three decisions cited by the Counsel of the appellant. We only refer to rules 21 and 22 of the Travancore-Cochin Criminal Rules of Practice. Rule 21 says, inter alia, that a Court of Session shall engage a pleader to defend an accused person if the charge against him is such that a capital sentence is possible and it appears that he has not engaged a pleader and is not possessed of sufficient means to do so. Then comes rule 22, which says that pleaders appointed under rule 21 shall be furnished with the necessary papers and allowed sufficient time to prepare for the defence. In this connection, we shall also refer to rule 9 of the Kerala Legal Aid (to the poor) Rules, 1958, which says that any person claiming legal aid may engage a Counsel of his choice. The Sessions Judge engaged a Counsel-not a Counsel of the appellant’s choice, but a Counsel of her own choice-and that only on 26th May at 10-45 a.m. Fifteen minutes thereafter, when the Court assembled at 11, the trial started. It is evident that the Counsel, who was engaged by the Sessions Judge to defend the appellant in a case which could have ended in his conviction and the imposition of even the extreme penalty of the law, did not get any time to prepare the case, to consult the appellant, if necesary, and to take instructions from him. To put it mildly, the engagement of Counsel in this case was nothing but a farce; and when the Criminal Rules of Practice and the Legal Aid Rules take so much of care to provide that a person like the appellant should have the choice of a Counsel of his own and the Counsel should have a reasonable time to prepare his case, it is surpirsing that the Sessions Judge treated the matter in this fashion. If at least the Counsel suggested by the appellant who appeared at the preliminary enquiry was engaged, the position would have been better, for, then the Counsel would have known the facts of the case. If at least the Counsel suggested by the appellant who appeared at the preliminary enquiry was engaged, the position would have been better, for, then the Counsel would have known the facts of the case. Not even that was done. It was the elementary duty of the Sessions Judge to have seen and even enquired and found out whether a Counsel was engaged by the appellant, and, if not, to have engaged a Counsel at State cost sufficiently early to enable the Counsel to study his brief. There was no meaning in posting the case for trial without doing that. The Sessions Judge has now convicted the appellant for murder and imposed a sentence of imprisonment for life, and the State, not being satisfied with the punishment, has asked for an enhancement of the sentence too. The seriousness of the situation is evident. 5. The revision petition is dismissed. The criminal appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge are set aside. The case is remitted for a fresh trial. 6. Sri T.V. Prabhakaran, the Counsel of the appellant, prays that, since this particular Sessions Judge has taken a view regarding the merits of the case, this Court be pleased to send the case to another Sessions Judge (a fresh mind) for re-trial. The request appears to be reasonable. The case is therefore remitted to the Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam for re-trial. 7. The records of the case will be sent back without any delay. M.C.M. ----- Appeal allowed; Revision Petition dismissed.