IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 16TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 536 of 2008() ------------------------ SC.364/2005 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT-II, MAVELIKKARA .................... PETITIONER/3rd ACCUSED: ----------------------------- MANOJ CHACKO, PAYKKARA THUNDIL @ PANACHAMOOTTIL, KADAPRA VILLAGE, THEVERY P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SMT.KAVITHA GANGADHARAN RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY ADV. SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.02.2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No.536 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 5th day of February, 2008. O R D E R The petitioner, who is the 3rd accused in Sessions Case No. 364 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Mavelikkara for offences punishable under Sections 302, 294(b) and 506(ii) r/w Section 34 IPC, seeks a direction to the trial court to adjourn the trial of S.C. No. 364/2005 from 06.02.2008 and to reschedule the trial to any other day in the month of March, 2008. According to the petitioner, the prosecution relies on the evidence of 44 charge witnesses, 26 Exhibits and 5 material objects to prove the charge against the petitioner and the other co-accused and the court charge itself was framed only on 18.01.2008 and the petitioner or his counsel did not get adequate time to prepare the brief and to shape his defence. 2. The final report in this case was filed in the year 2000. The committal Magistrate took cognizance of the offences in the year 2001 as C.P. No. 59/2001. It was after complying with Section 207 Cr.P.C that the learned Magistrate committed the CRL. M.C.NO. 536/2008 : 2 : case. It means that the accused was furnished with copies of all the prosecution records. The committal itself was in the year 2003. It cannot, therefore, be said that the petitioner or his counsel did not have enough time to study the case. It cannot also be contended that there has been negation of fair trial. 3. It is submitted that the Special Prosecutor in charge of the case has been given some accommodation by the court below even though the adjournment sought for by him was refused. I am sure that the trial court will not hesitate to give similar accommodation to the petitioner also but without adjourning the trial. With this clarification this Crl. M.C is disposed of. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL. M.C.NO. 536/2008 : 3 :