R. C. PATNAIK, J, J. ( 1 ) A Seminal question of considerable constitutional importance arises for consideration in this revision otherwise a run of the-mill case. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this revision are not material for the purpose of answering the question under consideration. A bare outline, however, may be given. The two petitioners were found in possession of 139 Kgs. of Ganja. They were produced by the Excise Authority before the Magistrate on 16-8-1983 when cognizance was taken and on their admission of guilt, they were convicted under section 47 (a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act read with section 55 thereof and were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand), in default, to further undergo S. I. for six months each. Appeal carried by them was heard ex parte in the absence of their lawyer and dismissed. In the revision, Shri P. K. Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has raised the question of considerable importance relating to administration of criminal justice in subordinate Courts urging that by failure of the State and the Judiciary to provide legal assistance to the petitioners, who were not represented by a lawyer, the guarantee enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed and the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced substantively without a just, fair and reasonable trial. He has also indicted the conduct of the proceeding as violative of the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India which is binding on all Courts under article 141 of the Constitution. ( 3 ) ARTICLE 21 insists that no man shall be deprived on his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. Since Maneka Gandhi's case1 the scope as well as the ambit of the guarantee has expanded from case to case in different facts and situations and it has been held that the principle of reasonableness, which is an essential element of equality of non-arbitrariness, pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence and the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must answer the test of reasonableness in order to be in conformity with Article 14. It has been observed:procedural safe-guards are the indispensable essence of liberty. It has been observed:procedural safe-guards are the indispensable essence of liberty. In fact, the history of personal liberty is largely the history of procedural safe-guards and right to a hearing has a human-right ring. Article 21 means fair, not formal procedure. ( 4 ) WHAT is the role of the Judiciary when an accused un-represented by a lawyer is produced before the Court? It is common knowledge that 50 per cent of the people live below the poverty line and 70 to 80 per cent of the people living in villages are illiterate. More than that are not aware of their rights conferred upon them by law. There is lack of legal awareness. Even a large mass of the literate people do not know what their legal rights are. Until legal literacy is promoted and economic condition of our poverty-stricken people is substantially advanced, the State is under an obligation to provide legal assistance. That is the mandate of Article 21 read with Article 39 (a) of the Constitution of India. ( 5 ) THE right to free legal services is clearly an essential ingredient of reasonable, fair and just procedure for a person accused of an offence and it must be held implicit in the guarantee of article 21 and the State is under constitutional mandate to provide a lawyer to an accused person unless he declines or objects to the provision of a lawyer. ( 6 ) THE constitutional obligation to provide free legal services to a persons who is un-represented by a lawyer, not only arises when the trial commences but also when the accused for the first time is produced before the Magistrate. There fore, it was stated in Khatri and others v. State of Bihar and others. It is elementary that the jeopardy to his personal liberty arises as soon as a person is arrested and produced before a Magistrate, for it is at that stage that he gets the first opportunity to apply for bail and obtain his release as also to resist remand to police or jail custody. That is the stage at which an accused person needs competent legal advice and representation and no procedure can be said to be reasonable, fair and just which denies legal advice and representation to him at this stage. That is the stage at which an accused person needs competent legal advice and representation and no procedure can be said to be reasonable, fair and just which denies legal advice and representation to him at this stage. The Supreme Court mandated the State to provide free legal services at the stage when an accused person was first produced before the Magistrate as also when he was remanded from time to time. At the stage of investigation, confessional statements are recorded identification parades are held, etc. large damage is likely to be caused to the accused person at that stage by an unfair investigating agency if the accused is not represented by a counsel; is without any legal assistance. Not unoften, it is alleged poor illiterate rustics or tribals are duped by the investigating agencies to make confessional statements. In course of my visits to jails complaints were made to me by some convict that they were told by the investigating agency that if they would confess they would be let off with small fines. The law, as it stands does not oblige the Magistrate who records the confessional statement to clearly and categorically explain to the accused making the confession the maximum punishment that is impossible under the law if he is held guilty pursuant to his confession. I feel there is a lacuna there. Majority of the confessional statements emanate, as our experience goes, from illiterate poor unsophisticated rustics. We say, that is the out come of a contrite, repentant heart. What is the percentage of confession made by affluent and sophisticated people? The Supreme Court therefore, not to render the guarantee illusory has obligated the Magistrates and the Sessions Judge before whom an accused is produced to ensure that he is aware of his right and exercise the same. It is not necessary that the accused should ask for help by way of legal assistance. The duty has been laid on the Courts. It is not necessary that the accused should ask for help by way of legal assistance. The duty has been laid on the Courts. Noticing the unfortunate and the unsatisfactory state of affairs prevailing in the country, the Supreme Court directed the Magistrates and the Sessions judges in the following words:we would, therefore, direct the Magistrates and the Sessions Judges in the country to inform every accused who appears before them and who is not represented by a lawyer on account of his poverty or indigence that he is entitled to free legal services at the cost of the state. Unless he is not willing to take advantage of the free legal services provided by the State he must be provided legal representation at the cost of the State. The only qualification would be that the offence charged against the accused, on conviction, would result in the sentence of imprisonment. Courts are the guardians of human rights. The common man looks upon the Court as his protector. The duty and the responsibility in the context the Constitution, therefore obligate them to be more concerned about the rights of the poors and the illiterates, who have hardly the capability to defend themselves. The Supreme Court has reminded the trial Judges that the persons without any resources are not non- persons. They are also the citizens of India. The rich and the affluent can find for themselves. The Courts are under additional obligation, when a poor illiterate person is produced before it, that the judicial process does not fail functionally as the protector of personal liberty. In Hussainara Khatoon and others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna. it has been observed:the right to free legal services is clearly an essential ingredient of reasonable, fair and. just procedure for a person accused on an offence and it must be held implicit in the guarantee of Article 21. This is a constitutional right of every accused person Who is unable to engage lawyer and secure legal services on account of reasons such as poverty, indigence or incommunicable situation and the State is under a mandate to provide a lawyer to an accused person. In Suk Das and another v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, the Supreme Court reminded. This is a constitutional right of every accused person Who is unable to engage lawyer and secure legal services on account of reasons such as poverty, indigence or incommunicable situation and the State is under a mandate to provide a lawyer to an accused person. In Suk Das and another v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, the Supreme Court reminded. It is an essential ingredient of reasonable fair and just procedure to a prisoner who is to seek his liberation through the Courts process that he should have legal service available to him. Providing legal service is the duty of the State and not its charity. (Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra. . Free legal assistance at State cost is a fundamental right of a person accused or an offence which may involve jeopardy to his life or personal liberty and this fundamental right is implicit in the requirement of reasonable, fair and just procedure prescribed in Article 21. The Accused is entitled to free legal assistance if he was not represented by a lawyer at State cost by reason of being accused of an offence which if proved might entail imprisonment. ( 7 ) IT is necessary that the accused un-represented by a lawyer and not having the capacity to engage a lawyer should apply to the Court for grant of legal assistance? The right is not forfeited for his failure to seek it. It is the duty of the State to grant it and of the Courts to ensure it unless the accused is unwilling to accept it. Therefore, the Supreme Court observed: Is the exercise of this fundamental right conditioned upon the accused applying for free legal assistance so that if he does not make the application for free legal assistance the trial may lawfully proceed without adequate legal representation being afforded to him7 It would in these circumstances make a mockery of legal aid if it were to be left to a poor, ignorant and illiterate accused to ask or free legal service. and deprecated the view entertained in some quarters that constitutional right was not violated when application for free legal assistance was not made. In Suk Dass case (supra), the failure to provide legal assistance, it was held was a violation of the fundamental right under article 21 and vitiated the trial. and deprecated the view entertained in some quarters that constitutional right was not violated when application for free legal assistance was not made. In Suk Dass case (supra), the failure to provide legal assistance, it was held was a violation of the fundamental right under article 21 and vitiated the trial. It was held to be a fatal constitutional infirmity rendering the conviction illegal. Though the process of discovering the contents of article 21 commenced from Maneka Gandhi's case (supra), it was authoritatively stated in Gopalanacharis case6 decided towards the end of 1980 and in khatris case (supra), decided at the beginning of 1981. Even then subordinate Courts are still indifferent and do not bear in mind and are not alive to the obligations enjoined on them by the Constitution and they are even oblivious of the mandate of the Supreme Court. The law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts under article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is the duty of every instrumentality to act in conformity with the law declared by the Supreme Court. Failure to act would amount to acting against the Constitution. Hence, I would exhort the trial Judges bearing in mind the guarantee contained in article 21, as expounded by the Supreme Court in the cases referred to above, to ensure legal assistance to a person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment who is not represented by a lawyer unless he is unwilling or objects to the grant of free legal assistance which would be very seldom indeed. Each Magistrate trial Judge Should have a panel of competent lawyers practising on criminal side through the assistance of the appropriate Legal Aid Committee so that as soon as an accused not represented by a lawyer is produced before him, he is granted legal assistance by provision of a lawyer. Because, the consequence of the failure to provide legal assistance is enormous. The judicial process might stand vitiated depending upon facts and circumstances unless legal assistances has been provided. In this case, the petitioners were produced before the Magistrate on 16-8-1983 long two and half years after the decision in Gopalanachari's case land Khatris case. The Magistrate seems to be totally oblivious of the requirement of the constitutional mandate. The judicial process might stand vitiated depending upon facts and circumstances unless legal assistances has been provided. In this case, the petitioners were produced before the Magistrate on 16-8-1983 long two and half years after the decision in Gopalanachari's case land Khatris case. The Magistrate seems to be totally oblivious of the requirement of the constitutional mandate. As soon at the petitioner represented by lawyer were produced cognizance was taken and on their pleading guilty to the accusation, were convicted and sentenced, as already stated. Since the denial of legal assistance vitiates the judicial process from the stage the accused persons were not provided legal assistance, the admission of guilt is invalid and consequently their conviction and the sentences awarded. No doubt, the quantity of non-duty-paid Ganja was quite considerable, but that is irrelevant when the process is vitiated; the constitutional right has been violated ( 8 ) THE offence is alleged to have been committed in 1983. The petitioners must have passed through a period of agony. Besides they have also suffered imprisonment for a period after the disposal of their appeal by the Sessions Judge, prior to they were admitted to bail by this Court. I would, therefore, while quashing the conviction and the sentences awarded, without directing a retrial quash also their prosecution. The quantity of non-duty-paid Ganja would, however, stand confiscated to the State. ( 9 ) IN the result, the Criminal Revision is allowed and the judgments of the Courts below are set aside. The petitioners are acquitted. Revision Allowed.