T.K.Saidalikutty vs Sub Inspector Of Police on 29 November, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 3572 of 2007()


1. T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE STATE, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.M.KUNJIMOIDEENKUTTY

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :29/11/2007

 O R D E R
                            R. BASANT, J.
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                  Crl.M.C.No. 3572 of 2007
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
           Dated this the 29th day of November, 2007

                               O R D E R

This petition is filed on behalf of the State by the Special

Prosecutor, who has been appointed in a Sessions trial, aggrieved

by the rejection of the prayer of the prosecution to adjourn the

trial of a sessions case, which is scheduled to commence on

1.12.2007.

2. The case was listed sufficiently early and from 1.12.07

to 7.12.2007 witnesses are summoned to appear and give

evidence. In the last week of November, the State filed an

application praying that the trial may be adjourned. The reason

shown was that some of the witnesses are not available. The

learned Judge considered the prayer and rejected the same. The

learned Sessions Judge felt that many witnesses have already

been summoned and that adjournment of the listed sessions trial

would upset the schedule of work of the court and cause

inconvenience to the witnesses also. It is in these circumstances

that the petition was dismissed.

Crl.M.C.No. 3572 of 2007
2

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that very

serious hardship and prejudice would result if the crucial and vital

witnesses who are now abroad are not made available for examination

before the learned Judge. That would result in failure of justice. It is

in these circumstances prayed that the impugned order may be set aside

and the learned Sessions Judge may be directed to adjourn the trial of

the case to a future date in February, 2008, by which date the petitioner

expects that the witnesses shall be available.

4. I have gone through the impugned order. I am unable to find

any vice vitiating the impugned order, that should persuade me to

invoke the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482

Cr.P.C. The prosecution must have taken steps to secure the presence

of the witnesses sufficiently early. If the prosecution feels that there

are compelling reasons, which make it impossible for the prosecution

to get ready for the trial, the interests of orderly procedure demanded

that an application should have been made sufficiently early. The

learned Sessions Judge was confronted with a belated application at the

Crl.M.C.No. 3572 of 2007
3

11th hour to adjourn the trial. The order of the learned Sessions Judge

does not at all strike me as improper or incorrect.

5. I do further note that no failure of justice is likely to result.

With the available witnesses the trial can go on. If the learned

Prosecutor feels that examination of any witness is absolutely essential,

the learned Prosecutor can seek time for examination of such

specified witnesses. I have no reason to assume that the learned Judge

would not consider such reasons. I need not at this point assume that

the learned Sessions Judge would not act true to his duty to discover

truth and do justice.

6. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed.

(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm