IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1093 of 2009() ------------------------- SC.113/2004 of THE ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC-III) PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- JITHESH,S/O.RAJAN, VEMBANATTU HOUSE, MUNAMBAM KARA, KUZHIPPILLY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.37 OF 2003 OF MUNAMBAM POLICE STATION) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- CRL.M.C.No. 1093 OF 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2009 O R D E R This petition is filed with a prayer to quash all further proceedings in L.P. 38/2008 on the file of the Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Adhoc) III, North Paravur. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the present petitioner had faced trial and evidence recorded in his presence and as he had not attended the court thereafter case was split up. The court considered the case against other accused and found that there is no iota of evidence and therefore acquitted all of them. So it is submitted by the learned counsel that there is no point in directing the petitioner to face the trial again and he may be exonerated by quashing the proceedings. Though it is a persuasive argument I am not prepared to accept it for the reason that a person who is not available before the court cannot really take advantage of what was transpired during his absence before the court. The decision reported in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police [2006 (1) KLT 522], the position is slightly different for the reason the persons were not before the Crl.M.C 1093/2009 -2- court at all and they wanted to quash the proceedings. But here the accused was before the court at a relevant point of time and thereafter did not co-operate the trial. So the only leniency that can be shown is to direct the learned Sessions Judge to consider the bail application as expeditiously as possible on the date of surrender and move the bail application in the early hours of the working day. The court can also consider the materials available in this case in order to decide whether it is a case he is entitled to an expeditious trial. He can raise all the contentions for discharge and the court can consider the same and pass appropriate orders at the relevant stage. The Crl.M.C is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm