IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13180 of 2009(Q)
1. SURESH MANJOORAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VARGHESE KURIAN ,S/O. VARGHESE,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :17/06/2009
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
W.P.(C).No. 13180 OF 2009
===========================
Dated this the 17th day of June,2009
JUDGMENT
Petitioner the accused in C.C.390/1998 and
391/1998 on the file of Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram filed
Crl.A.278/2002 and Crl.A.279/2002 before
second Additional Sessions Court,
Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioner filed Exts.P2
to P4 applications in the appeal to receive
additional evidence, for a direction to the
complainant to produce his passport and also to
examine additional witness. When the learned
Sessions Judge did not dispose those petitions,
petitioner filed W.P.(C)15437/2006 for a
direction to the Sessions Court to dispose
W.P.(C)13180/2009 2
those applications. That Writ Petition was
disposed under Ext.P5 judgment on 26.8.2008,
directing the Sessions Judge to dispose of the
appeals as expeditiously as possible making it
clear that before disposing the appeal the Sessions
Judge shall consider all pending petitions on
merits and appropriate decision shall be taken on
such petitions and if the learned Judge feels that
all petitions deserve to be allowed further action
shall be taken before the appeal is disposed of.
Thereafter petitioner again filed Exts.P6 to P8
applications in the appeals which are also pending.
This petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to command the Additional
Sessions Judge to consider and dispose the
applications before the criminal appeals are taken
up for hearing.
2.Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was
heard.
3. The argument of the learned counsel is that
W.P.(C)13180/2009 3
in the light of the directions given in Ext.P5,
learned Sessions Judge is bound to hear the pending
petitions before hearing the appeals and learned
Sessions Judge is not justified in compelling the
petitioner to argue the appeal before arguing the
petitions and therefore necessary directions are to
be issued.
4. Ext.P5 judgment of this court establish
that the said contention was already taken note of
by this court and necessary directions were given.
As is clear from Ext.P5, the said Writ Petition was
also filed for a direction to the Sessions Judge to
dispose of the petitions before hearing the appeal.
The judgment of this court shows that respondents
opposed that plea and contended that the two tier
hearing of the appeal and petitions is not
necessary and after hearing the appeals and the
court can dispose the petitions as well as the
appeals. Learned single Judge accepted that
submission and in paragraph 3 of the judgment
W.P.(C)13180/2009 4
directed the Sessions Judge to dispose the appeals
making it clear that while hearing the appeals all
the petitions filed by the appellant are also to be
heard and those petitions are also to be disposed
before disposing the appeals. It is clear that
what was intended by this court is that the appeals
as well as all pending petitions are to be heard.
If on such hearing, learned Sessions Judge finds
that any of those petitions are to be allowed,
namely whether any additional evidence is to be let
in or any additional document is to be summoned,
then orders are to be passed to that effect and the
judgment in the appeal is to be passed only
thereafter. On the other hand, after hearing the
appeals and the petitions, learned Sessions Judge
finds that the applications are not to be allowed,
then the learned Sessions Judge is competent to
dismiss those applications and thereafter pronounce
the judgment in the appeals. In such circumstance
I find no necessity to give any further direction.
W.P.(C)13180/2009 5
Petition is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).NO. /06
---------------------
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006Petitioner the accused in C.C.390/1998 and 391/1998 on
the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram filed
Crl.A.278/2002 and Crl.A.279/2002 before II Additional Sessions Court,
Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioner filed Exts.P2 to P4 applications in the appeal to
receive additional evidence with a direction to the complainant to produce his
passport and also to examine additional witness. When the learned Sessions Judge
did not dispose those petitions petitioner filed W.P.(C)15437/2006 for a direction
to Sessions Court to dispose those applications. That Writ Petition was disposed
under Ext.P5 judgment on 26.8.2008 directing the Sessions Judge to dispose of the
appeal as expeditiously as possible making it clear that before disposing the appeal
the Sessions Judge shall consider all pending petitions on merits and appropriate
decision shall be taken on such petitions. If the learned Judge feels that all
petitions deserve to be allowed further action shall be taken before the appeal is
disposed of. Thereafter petitioner again filed Exts.P6 to P8 applications which are
also pending. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to
command the Additional Sessions Judge to consider and dispose of the application
before criminal appeals are taken up for hearing.
2.Learned counsel appearing for petitioner
was heard.
3. The argument of the learned counsel is
that in the light of the directions given in
Ext.P5 learned Sessions Judge is bound to hear
the pending petitions before hearing the appeal
W.P.(C)13180/2009 7
and learned Sessions Judge is not justified in
compelling the petitioner to argue the appeal
before arguing the petitions and therefore
necessary directions is to be issued.
4. Ext.P5 judgment of this court establish
that the said contention was already taken note of
by this court and necessary directions were given.
As is clear from Ext.P5 the said Writ Petition was
also filed for a direction to the Sessions Judge to
dispose of the petition before hearing the appeal.
The judgment of this court shows that respondents
oppose that plea and contended that the two tier
hearing of the appeal and petition is not necessary
and after hearing the appeal and the petitions the
court can dispose the petitions as well as the
appeal. Learned single Judge accepted that
submission and in paragraph 3 of the judgment
directed to dispose the appeal making it clear that
while hearing the appeal all the petitions filed by
the appellant are also to be heard and those
W.P.(C)13180/2009 8
petitions are also to be disposed before disposing
the appeal. It is clear that what was intended by
this court is that the appeal as well as pending
petitions are to be heard. If on such hearing
learned Sessions Judge finds that any of these
petitions are to be allowed namely whether any
additional evidence is to be let in or any
additional document is to be summoned then orders
have to be passed to that effect and the judgment
in the appeal is to be passed only thereafter. On
the other hand, after hearing the appeal and the
petitions learned Sessions Judge finds that the
applications are not to be allowed then learned
Sessions Judge is competent to dismiss those
applications and thereafter pronounce the judgment.
In such circumstance I find it not necessary to
give any further direction.