IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 14TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 344 of 2011() ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28/01/2011 IN CRL.MP 14/2011 IN SC.85/2009 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONER(S): 6TH ACCUSED -------------------------- MUHAMMED SHIBIN, S/O.JABBAR, JS NIVAS, MANGALAPURAM P.O., KAZHAKUTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (REPRESENTING C.I. OF POLICE, TIRUR IN CRIME NO.460/2008 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.344 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 03rd day of February, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is accused No.6 in S.C. No.85 of 2009 of the court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirur involving offences punishable under Secs.120B, 395, 412 and 216A of the Indian Penal Code. On 04.01.2011 the case was scheduled for trial from 01.02.2011. According to the petitioner, towards the fag end of the time scheduled, his counsel told him after perusal of the case diary that about 65 witnesses are to be examined, a number of documents are to be marked and that assistance of senior counsel is required. Thereon petitioner searched for a senior counsel for assistance but, they all said that in the absence of sufficient time they are not able to take up engagement for petitioner. Petitioner filed appropriate application before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge for adjournment of the case but, that has not been granted. It is therefore prayed that a direction may be issued to the learned Assistant Sessions Jude to post the case after 30 days to enable the petitioner to engage a counsel of his choice. Learned CRL.M.C. No. 344 of 2011 -: 2 :- counsel submitted under Sec.303 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code”), petitioner is entitled to be defended by a counsel. 2. There are also provisions in the Code which says that in sessions cases there shall be day-to-day trial. No doubt, it is within the power of the court concerned, under Sec.309 of the Code to adjourn trial of the case, if necessary on terms of cost. That is a matter within the discretion of the court concerned. Here, case was scheduled for trial on 04.01.2011 to commence from 01.02.2011. The case is of the year 2009. I find it difficult to accept the argument that it was after the case was scheduled for trial on 04.01.2011 that the counsel learnt that there are so many witnesses and documents involved and assistance of a senior counsel is required. Hence I am not very much impressed by that contention. Learned counsel submits that trial of the case has commenced on 02.02.2011. Witnesses have been examined without being cross examined by petitioner. Having regard to the circumstances stated, learned Assistant Sessions Judge is directed to give a weeks' time to the petitioner to engage a lawyer and cross examine the witnesses already examined. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge CRL.M.C. No. 344 of 2011 -: 3 :- may also consider whether it is possible to re-schedule the trial and post the case after a week from this day. This criminal miscellaneous case is disposed of in the above lines. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. Sbna