IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23RD POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 396 of 2009(V) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- AKBAR.A, S/O. LATE ALIYARKUNJU, FASHION VILLA, ALAKKAL, MUKKADA, KAYAMKULAM, NOW RESIDING AT PUTHEN VEEDU, NEAR M.S.M COLLEGE, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH C0URT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTIONS, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBCID, KOLLAM. ADDL. 4. REMANI.T., D/O.THANKAMMA, “REMANIKA”, ELAMPALLEL, PALLICKAL, PAYYANALLOOR.P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA. (Addl.4th respondent is impleaded as per order dated 13.01.09 in I.A.No.531/09) BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB ADVOCATE SIVAN MADATHIL FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ W.P(C). No.396 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the defacto complainant in a prosecution alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 420 I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. This Court had earlier issued directions for the expeditious completion of the trial. But in spite of specific directions and later extension of time, the case has not been disposed of yet. It is submitted at the Bar that the time for disposal has already elapsed and the learned Magistrate has prayed for further extension of time for disposal of the case. 2. A Prosecutor in the State cadre working in the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kollam was in charge of the case. That Prosecutor has now been transferred to Trivandrum w.e.f 15.12.08. A new Prosecutor has taken over. The petitioner has come to this Court at this juncture to request the Court to make arrangements so that the Prosecutor who was hitherto conducting this case involving voluminous evidence shall be able W.P(C). No.396 of 2009 2 to complete the prosecution notwithstanding his transfer to Trivandrum w.e.f 15.12.08. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that about 51 witnesses have to be examined in the case and as many as 43 were examined by the Prosecutor, who has now been transferred. At this juncture if a new Prosecutor were to take over, that would affect the interests of proper conduct of the prosecution. It is further pointed out that in as much as there is a time limit prescribed by the court, it may not be possible to the new incumbent - Prosecutor, to do justice to his work. He may not get sufficient time to study the prosecution in its entirety and do justice to the work. 3. The application is opposed by the learned Government Pleader as also the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, who has wanted himself to be impleaded. That request is allowed and the 4th accused is impleaded as additional 4th respondent. I.A.No.531 of 2009 is allowed. 4. The learned Government Pleader submits that there is absolutely no justification in the insistence that the same Prosecutor must continue the conduct of the case. A new incumbent has taken charge. He is equally competent. It may not be possible for a Prosecutor who is now working at W.P(C). No.396 of 2009 3 Trivandrum to be brought back in this case to complete the trial in a part heard matter. There are no compelling and exceptional reasons to entitle the petitioner for such an exceptional relief in this case, submits the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that all is not fair with the request made by the petitioner and that there is no reason whatsoever to insist that the Prosecutor who is now working at Trivandrum must be brought back in this case. 5. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I find merit in the objection by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am not persuaded to agree that there are any compelling or exceptional reasons in this case that should persuade this Court to grant the petitioner the relief claimed by bringing back a transferred Prosecutor to the court to conduct the prosecution. I have no reason to assume that the present Prosecutor shall not discharge his duties properly. 6. This W.P(C) is, in these circumstances, dismissed. However I take note of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that reasonable and sufficient time may be granted to the learned Public Prosecutor to get ready with the case. It is W.P(C). No.396 of 2009 4 for the Prosecutor to make appropriate request before the learned Magistrate and needless to say, the learned Magistrate must consider such request conscious of the realities of the situation where the present Prosecutor has inherited a file in which trial has advanced considerably. 7. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-