IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2008 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1398 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.396/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SULTHANBATHERY .................... PETITIONER: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------ T.C. KURIAKOSE, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. CHACKO, GREEN GINER MERCHANT, CHUNGAM, SULTHAN BATHERI. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED/STATE: --------------------------- 1. DILIP KUMAR, S/O. BALAN, B.429, MAJESTIC MANSION, SHAMLAL, BAGAMPET, HYDERABAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 1398 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of May, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the complainant in a prosecution under Section 420 I.P.C. Cognizance was taken as early as in 2005. The case has reached the fag end of trial now. The petitioner has come to this Court complaining about the inordinate delay in the disposal of the case. The baseless requests of the accused for indulgent further opportunities were allowed by the learned Magistrate. His application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was allowed and re-opening of the defence evidence was permitted. His application under Section 315 Cr.P.C. was allowed. He was permitted to examine himself. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come to this Court complaining about the improper/ inadequate conduct of trial by the learned Magistrate. 2. Report of the learned Magistrate has been called for. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have considered all the relevant inputs. The diary extract clearly shows that opportunity has been granted indulgently to the Crl.M.C.No. 1398 of 2008 2 accused by the learned Magistrate. But I am not persuaded to agree that the impugned orders, Annexs. C and D, under which reopening of defence evidence was permitted on condition that the accused deposits an amount of Rs.500/- payable to the petitioner/complainant and the consequent permission granted to the accused to examine himself under Section 315 Cr.P.C. do warrant any interference. The report of the learned Magistrate shows that every endeavour shall be made to expeditiously complete the trial. 3. I am satisfied that Annexs. C and D orders do not warrant any interference. However, I am satisfied that there can be an observation that the learned Magistrate must expeditiously dispose of the case after giving the accused an opportunity to examine himself under Section 315 Cr.P.C. I expect the learned Magistrate to dispose of the case finally within a period of two months from the date on which a copy of this order is produced before the learned Magistrate. Compliance shall be reported to this Court. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed with the above observations. (R. BASANT) Judge tm Crl.M.C.No. 1398 of 2008 3