IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2009 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 13180 of 2009(Q) -------------------------- CRA.278/2002 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SURESH MANJOORAN CC XXVI/1664,MANJOORANS, KONTHURUTHY, THEVARA KOCHI 682 013. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. VARGHESE KURIAN, S/O. VARGHESE, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, SEETHATHODU PO, PATHANAMTHITTA AND TEMPORARILY RESIDING AT P.B.NO. 1713, MANAMA, BAHRAIN, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, S.P.BALAKRISHNAN PILLAI, S/O. PANKAJAKSHAN PILLAI, THIKKURRISSI HOUSE, N-8, JAWAHAR NAGAR, TRIVANDRUM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA , ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 031. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR GIKKU JACOB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: LN M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== W.P.(C).No. 13180 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 17th day of June,2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner the accused in C.C.390/1998 and 391/1998 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram filed Crl.A.278/2002 and Crl.A.279/2002 before second Additional Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioner filed Exts.P2 to P4 applications in the appeal to receive additional evidence, for a direction to the complainant to produce his passport and also to examine additional witness. When the learned Sessions Judge did not dispose those petitions, petitioner filed W.P.(C)15437/2006 for a direction to the Sessions Court to dispose W.P.(C)13180/2009 2 those applications. That Writ Petition was disposed under Ext.P5 judgment on 26.8.2008, directing the Sessions Judge to dispose of the appeals as expeditiously as possible making it clear that before disposing the appeal the Sessions Judge shall consider all pending petitions on merits and appropriate decision shall be taken on such petitions and if the learned Judge feels that all petitions deserve to be allowed further action shall be taken before the appeal is disposed of. Thereafter petitioner again filed Exts.P6 to P8 applications in the appeals which are also pending. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to command the Additional Sessions Judge to consider and dispose the applications before the criminal appeals are taken up for hearing. 2.Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that W.P.(C)13180/2009 3 in the light of the directions given in Ext.P5, learned Sessions Judge is bound to hear the pending petitions before hearing the appeals and learned Sessions Judge is not justified in compelling the petitioner to argue the appeal before arguing the petitions and therefore necessary directions are to be issued. 4. Ext.P5 judgment of this court establish that the said contention was already taken note of by this court and necessary directions were given. As is clear from Ext.P5, the said Writ Petition was also filed for a direction to the Sessions Judge to dispose of the petitions before hearing the appeal. The judgment of this court shows that respondents opposed that plea and contended that the two tier hearing of the appeal and petitions is not necessary and after hearing the appeals and the court can dispose the petitions as well as the appeals. Learned single Judge accepted that submission and in paragraph 3 of the judgment W.P.(C)13180/2009 4 directed the Sessions Judge to dispose the appeals making it clear that while hearing the appeals all the petitions filed by the appellant are also to be heard and those petitions are also to be disposed before disposing the appeals. It is clear that what was intended by this court is that the appeals as well as all pending petitions are to be heard. If on such hearing, learned Sessions Judge finds that any of those petitions are to be allowed, namely whether any additional evidence is to be let in or any additional document is to be summoned, then orders are to be passed to that effect and the judgment in the appeal is to be passed only thereafter. On the other hand, after hearing the appeals and the petitions, learned Sessions Judge finds that the applications are not to be allowed, then the learned Sessions Judge is competent to dismiss those applications and thereafter pronounce the judgment in the appeals. In such circumstance I find no necessity to give any further direction. W.P.(C)13180/2009 5 Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006Petitioner the accused in C.C.390/1998 and 391/1998 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram filed Crl.A.278/2002 and Crl.A.279/2002 before II Additional Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioner filed Exts.P2 to P4 applications in the appeal to receive additional evidence with a direction to the complainant to produce his passport and also to examine additional witness. When the learned Sessions Judge did not dispose those petitions petitioner filed W.P.(C)15437/2006 for a direction to Sessions Court to dispose those applications. That Writ Petition was disposed under Ext.P5 judgment on 26.8.2008 directing the Sessions Judge to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible making it clear that before disposing the appeal the Sessions Judge shall consider all pending petitions on merits and appropriate decision shall be taken on such petitions. If the learned Judge feels that all petitions deserve to be allowed further action shall be taken before the appeal is disposed of. Thereafter petitioner again filed Exts.P6 to P8 applications which are also pending. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to command the Additional Sessions Judge to consider and dispose of the application before criminal appeals are taken up for hearing. 2.Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that in the light of the directions given in Ext.P5 learned Sessions Judge is bound to hear the pending petitions before hearing the appeal W.P.(C)13180/2009 7 and learned Sessions Judge is not justified in compelling the petitioner to argue the appeal before arguing the petitions and therefore necessary directions is to be issued. 4. Ext.P5 judgment of this court establish that the said contention was already taken note of by this court and necessary directions were given. As is clear from Ext.P5 the said Writ Petition was also filed for a direction to the Sessions Judge to dispose of the petition before hearing the appeal. The judgment of this court shows that respondents oppose that plea and contended that the two tier hearing of the appeal and petition is not necessary and after hearing the appeal and the petitions the court can dispose the petitions as well as the appeal. Learned single Judge accepted that submission and in paragraph 3 of the judgment directed to dispose the appeal making it clear that while hearing the appeal all the petitions filed by the appellant are also to be heard and those W.P.(C)13180/2009 8 petitions are also to be disposed before disposing the appeal. It is clear that what was intended by this court is that the appeal as well as pending petitions are to be heard. If on such hearing learned Sessions Judge finds that any of these petitions are to be allowed namely whether any additional evidence is to be let in or any additional document is to be summoned then orders have to be passed to that effect and the judgment in the appeal is to be passed only thereafter. On the other hand, after hearing the appeal and the petitions learned Sessions Judge finds that the applications are not to be allowed then learned Sessions Judge is competent to dismiss those applications and thereafter pronounce the judgment. In such circumstance I find it not necessary to give any further direction.