High Court Kerala High Court

T.C. Kuriakose vs Dilip Kumar on 21 May, 2008

Kerala High Court
T.C. Kuriakose vs Dilip Kumar on 21 May, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 1398 of 2008()


1. T.C. KURIAKOSE, AGED 54 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. DILIP KUMAR, S/O. BALAN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :21/05/2008

 O R D E R
                           R. BASANT, J.
                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                 Crl.M.C.No. 1398 of 2008
                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
             Dated this the 21st day of May, 2008

                              O R D E R

The petitioner is the complainant in a prosecution under

Section 420 I.P.C. Cognizance was taken as early as in 2005.

The case has reached the fag end of trial now. The petitioner has

come to this Court complaining about the inordinate delay in the

disposal of the case. The baseless requests of the accused for

indulgent further opportunities were allowed by the learned

Magistrate. His application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was

allowed and re-opening of the defence evidence was permitted.

His application under Section 315 Cr.P.C. was allowed. He was

permitted to examine himself. It is in these circumstances that

the petitioner has come to this Court complaining about the

improper/ inadequate conduct of trial by the learned Magistrate.

2. Report of the learned Magistrate has been called for. I

have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have

considered all the relevant inputs. The diary extract clearly

shows that opportunity has been granted indulgently to the

Crl.M.C.No. 1398 of 2008
2

accused by the learned Magistrate. But I am not persuaded to agree

that the impugned orders, Annexs. C and D, under which reopening of

defence evidence was permitted on condition that the accused deposits

an amount of Rs.500/- payable to the petitioner/complainant and the

consequent permission granted to the accused to examine himself

under Section 315 Cr.P.C. do warrant any interference. The report of

the learned Magistrate shows that every endeavour shall be made to

expeditiously complete the trial.

3. I am satisfied that Annexs. C and D orders do not warrant any

interference. However, I am satisfied that there can be an observation

that the learned Magistrate must expeditiously dispose of the case after

giving the accused an opportunity to examine himself under Section

315 Cr.P.C. I expect the learned Magistrate to dispose of the case

finally within a period of two months from the date on which a copy of

this order is produced before the learned Magistrate. Compliance shall

be reported to this Court.

This Crl.M.C. is dismissed with the above observations.

(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm

Crl.M.C.No. 1398 of 2008
3