IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 616 of 2008() ------------------------ CC.14/2005 of III ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- K.R. SANJEEV KUMAR, DEVI MANSION, CHUNGAM, CHERUTHURUTHY, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL SRI.M.A.JOSEPH MANAVALAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI COCHIN. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SC.,CBI. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.616 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of February, 2008 ORDER The petitioner, who is the sole accused in C.C.No.14/2005 on the file of Special Judge(CBI)I, Ernakulam for offences punishable under Sections 409,419,467 and 471 IPC read with Section 52 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and Section 13(2) for the contravention of Section13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 seeks a direction to the Special Court to re- schedule the trial in the above case to convenient dates after a month. 2. According to the petitioner, the charge sheet filed by the CBI proposes to examine 30 witnesses and get marked 52 documents and immediately after framing the court charge on 5.2.08, the trial court has straightaway scheduled the case for prosecution evidence from 12th February 2008 onwards without granting a breathing time to the petitioner to prepare for the trial and to shape his defence. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the CBI. The charge sheet itself Crl.M.C.No.616 of 2008 2 was filed in the year 2005 and the petitioner has no grievance that he was not served with the copies of the prosecution records then and there. The learned Standing Counsel for the CBI submits that some of the persons who were allegedly cheated by the petitioner while working as a Sorting Assistant at Railway Mail Service, Shornur are in distinct places in India and abroad and it was noticing that all of them are available at Ernakulam for trial, that the case has been scheduled from 12th February onwards. 4. It is true that the said case has been listed for prosecution evidence within one week of framing of the court charge. But as observed earlier, the charge sheet itself was filed in the year 2005 and the petitioner ought to have anticipated the trial of the case at least within two years thereof. Evidence in the case is not going to be as complicated as in the usual trials before the Special Court, CBI. The main witnesses are the alleged victims who had made remittances from abroad through Railway Mail Service, Shornur where the petitioner was employed as a Sorting Assistant. I am sure that the trial Judge will show sufficient indulgence towards the defence counsel by Crl.M.C.No.616 of 2008 3 way of accommodation, in case the examination of any particular witness is lengthy or in case the documentary evidence is unduly voluminous as to warrant some preparation for the purpose of cross-examination. If the trial before the Special Court is rescheduled, it would adversely affect the other cases which have been scheduled before that court and dislocate the work of that court. 5. Accordingly, this Crl.M.C is disposed of with a direction that the court below shall give sufficient accommodation to the defence lawyer to prepare his case and shape his defence, but at the same time without dislocating the schedules as far as possible. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj