K. L. SHRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the appellate judgment and order dated 1/4/1983 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Criminal Appeal No. 158 of 1982. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution story on 23/9/1979 when Chhotibai (P. W. 2) was sitting inside her house, the petitioner armed with a Dhariya entered there and assaulted her therewith. As a result, she sustained injury in the finger of her left hand. The occurrence was immediately reported at P. S. Mahankal. A crime was registered and investigation was set afoot. Chhotibai was sent for medical-examination. Dr. Rasikalal Jam (P. W. 1) examined her and found that she had an incised injury on her finger. ( 3 ) AT the conclusion of the investigation the petitioner was prosecuted for offences under sections 452 and 324 of the I. P. C. ( 4 ) AT the conclusion of the trial the learned trial Magistrate convicted the petitioner for the offences aforesaid and sentenced him to R. I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 200. 00 on each count, sentences to run concurrently. In appeal the convictions and sentences of the petitioner were maintained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. ( 5 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner could not engage the services of a lawyer due to his poverty and as he was un-represented the trial must be held to be vitiated. ( 6 ) I find that the contention has force. It is pertinent to point out that section 304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 expressly provides for legal aid to accused in certain cases. By Article 39-A of the Constitution directive bas been added by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 to provide for equal justice and free legal aid. It is pertinent to point out that section 304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 expressly provides for legal aid to accused in certain cases. By Article 39-A of the Constitution directive bas been added by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 to provide for equal justice and free legal aid. In the decision in Suk Dass case1 it has been held that the fundamental right of free legal assistance at State cost of a person accused of an offence which may involve jeopardy to his life or personal liberty is implicit in the requirement of reasonable fair and just procedure prescribed by Article 21 of the Constitution It has been further held that the Court is under an obligation to inform the accused that if he is unable to engage the service of a lawyer on account of poverty or indigence he is entitled to obtain free legal services at the cost of the State and conviction of the un-represented accused reached without so informing him has to be quashed, the trial being vitiated due to violation of his fundamental right referred of above. The decision is also an authority for the proposition that on a consideration of the circumstances of a particular case, the Court may direct that no fresh trial shall be held. ( 7 ) FROM the foregoing discussion it is clear that the revision petition deserves to be allowed. ( 8 ) THE next submission of the petitioner's learned counsel is that the petitioner has been under the stress of the prosecution right from 1979 and he has already suffered a part of sentence. It is urged that on a consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case it is not desirable that he should be re-tried. ( 9 ) ON a careful consideration I find that the aforesaid contention too is well-merited. ( 10 ) IN the result, the revision petition is allowed. The petitioners convictions and sentences under sections 452 and 324 of the I. P. C. are set aside. It is further directed that the petitioner shall not be re-tried. Revision allowed. .