IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 210 of 2007()
1. SOURABH RAJ, AGED 23,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.D.JOHNY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :25/01/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.210 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of January, 2007
ORDER
The grievance of the petitioner is that the prosecution under
Section 279 and 304 A I.P.C initiated against him pending before the
J.F.M.C-I, Ernakulam is not being disposed of. The alleged incident
took place on 22.03.2005. On 30.12.05, the accused appeared and
plea was recorded. Though on 12.01.2006 summons was ordered to
Cws 1 to 7, trial has not commenced yet. He is a student of B.Tech.
course in the Cochin University at Kottayam Study Centre. His course
is unlikely to be completed by April, 2007. If the case against the
petitioner is not disposed of by April, 2007, that would cause him
great prejudice and hardship. In these circumstances, it is prayed
that there may be a specific direction for early disposal of the case
against the petitioner.
2. The request of the petitioner appears to be justified. An
accused is certainly entitled for an expeditious disposal of the case
against him. Right to speedy trial is certainly an incident of Human
Rights. But has the petitioner made such an application before the
learned Magistrate ? Admittedly he has not. Why has he come to this
Court without and before making a request before the learned
Magistrate ? I find no satisfactory answer forthcoming. It is certainly
Crl.M.C.No.210 of 2007 2
for the petitioner to bring to the notice of the learned Magistrate the
need for an expeditious disposal of his case by taking it up out of turn.
In fact, the order dated 12.01.2006, according to the petitioner, is
that summons be issued to the witnesses. Therefore it would appear
that the turn for trial has already come.
3. It is for the petitioner certainly to move the learned
Magistrate for an expeditious trial. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, I find no reasons why the learned Magistrate should not
accept the said request. The petitioner must move the learned
Magistrate at the first instance. If the learned Magistrate does not
choose to conduct an expeditious trial, then only the petitioner can
move this Court.
4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but
with the above specific observations.
5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for
the petitioner for production before the learned Magistrate.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/
Crl.M.C.No.210 of 2007 3