IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 24TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 678 of 2008() ------------------------ SC.346/2006 of SPL. COURT (NDPS ACT CASES), THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------ SANTHIL KUMAR @ YESAYYA, S/O.AROGYAM, KANDATHIL HOUSE, NIRAPPEL KARA BHAGOM, VELLIMALA KARA, ANAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE, S.I. OF POLICE, VANDANMEDU, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.678 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th day of February, 2008 ORDER The petitioner, who is the accused in S.C.No.346 of 2006 on the file of the Special Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Thodupuzha, challenges the order dated 7.2.08 passed by the said court dismissing the petition (Cr.M.P.No.490/2008) filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C seeking permission to cross- examine PWs1 to 7, who were examined in chief earlier. 2. A perusal of the impugned order shows that, the earlier counsel who was appearing for the petitioner, after getting the permission to have the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses (PWs1 to 7) deferred, was thereafter playing hide and seek and putting forward one reason or the other for not availing of the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses who are poor villagers coming from Tamil Nadu and border areas. After cleverly getting the trial postponed, he finally relinquished his vakalath and it was the new counsel who was engaged by the petitioner, who sought permission to cross-examine the witnesses. Notwithstanding the delaying tactics resorted to by Crl.M.C.No.678 of 2008 2 the petitioner and his former counsel, interests of justice require that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to cross- examine his prosecution witnesses. In fact, the court below was also committing a mistake in deferring the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, just to suit the convenience of the counsel. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is given an opportunity to cross-examine PWs1 to 7 but on one condition (to which his counsel also agrees) that he will pay the batta and process fee for again summoning PWs1 to 7 to Court. The court below shall resume the trial of the case, after giving the petitioner an opportunity to cross-examine PWs1 to 7, for which purpose the case shall stand posted before the court below to 3.03.08. The necessary process fee and batta shall be deposited by the petitioner before the court below sufficiently in advance to enable the court below to resume the trial from 3.3.08 onwards. This Crl.M.C is disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj