IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2255 of 2008() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13/05/2008 IN CRMP 10/2008 IN CC.1/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, LAKSHADWEEP .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------------------ SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SPE CBI, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------ 1. D. ALI MANIKFAN, REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND PORT OFFICER, U.T LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATHY. 2. MOHAMMED HASSANBABIGOTHI, PROPRIETOR, M/S. ISLAND AGENCIES, F-1105, JAWAHARLAL NEHUR STADIUM, KALOOR, KOCHI-682019. BY ADV. SRI.GEO PAUL FOR R2 SRI.SANU MATHEW FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.2255 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15 th day of July, 2008 ORDER The Revision petitioner, who is the Central Bureau of Investigation challenges the order dated 13.05.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Lakshadweep adjourning the trial of C.C.No.1 of 2007 but directing the prosecution to pay a nominal cost of Rs.2500/- each to the defence lawyers. 2. The revision petitioner is the complainant in C.C.No.1 of 2007. The respondents/accused have been charge sheeted for offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B of the IPC. The case was scheduled for trial from 13.5.08 in the Sessions Court, Lakshadweep at Kavarathy. According to the revision petitioner , the senior Public Prosecutor who was engaged in other part heard cases before the CBI Special Court, Ernakulam was unable to reach Kavaratti on 13.5.08. Therefore an application for adjournment of the trial was filed before the Crl.R.P.No.2255 of 2008 2 Sessions Judge, Lakshadweep on 12.5.2008 after serving a copy of the same to the defence lawyers on the Main Land itself. There is no dispute that on 12.5.2008, the Sessions Judge acting on the application had issued stop memo to the witnesses and posted the case to 13.5.2008. Accordingly the revision petitioner had stopped the prosecution witnesses who were scheduled to be examined from 13.5.2008. On 13.5.2008 when the case came up for trial, no witness was present. Since the defence vehemently opposed the granting of adjournment as two lawyers from the Main land had undertaken to travel to Lakshadweep, the Sessions Judge though was inclined to adjourn the trial ordered the CBI to pay cost of Rs.2,500/- to each of the defence lawyers to meet the nominal expenses. It is the said condition which is challenged by the CBI. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the 2nd accused/2nd respondent as well. 4. No doubt, the revision petitioner could have filed an application for adjournment sufficiently early so as to avoid the Crl.R.P.No.2255 of 2008 3 inconvenience caused to the defence lawyers, who were unnecessarily travelling from the Main land to Lakshadweep for the purpose of conducting the trial. But then, the revision petitioner having put forward a valid ground namely the over engagement of the only Public Prosecutor at the Special Courts at Ernakulam and the learned Sessions Judge having granted the adjournment of the trial, was not justified in directing the prosecution to pay costs to the defence counsel. There may be unavoidable and unforeseen reasons for the dislocation of the work before a criminal court. If on account of that the prosecuting agency were to be penalised merely because the postponement of the trial was on their petition, it may be difficult for any prosecuting agency to conduct the case before the criminal court. Essentially the expenses, if any, incurred by the defence lawyer will have to be met by his client. Hence the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in mulcting the revision petitioner with costs for the adjournment of trial. It was submitted at the Bar that the particular Sessions Judge who passed the impugned order has retired from service. If so, even Crl.R.P.No.2255 of 2008 4 if the trial was not adjourned, the learned judge would not have disposed of the case which involves voluminous oral and documentary evidences. Hence the direction in the impugned order to pay costs is dislodged. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner shall also take this as an eye opener to see that trial before any court is not dislocated and the witnesses as well as the accused are not put to untold hardship by filing petitions on such short notice. This petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 15 th day of July, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj