IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1783 of 2009() ------------------------- SC.11/1993 of PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ PURUSHOTHAMAN VAMADEVAN, PANAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,MULAVANA P.O., KUNDARA,KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.ALEX N.MATHEW (KOLLAM), MR.H.RAMANAN, MR.JAMES JOSE. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO. 1783 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 5th June 2009 O R D E R Petitioner was second accused in S.C.87/1990 on the file of Assistant Sessions court, Kollam. Prosecution case was that on 8/8/1989 at about 9.15 p.m all the seven accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing hurt to Cws.1 to 7 and in furtherance of the common object set fire to the house of CW1 and destroyed the house of CW3 and trespassed into the house of CW2 and committed offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 427 and 436 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. As the petitioner was absconding the case as against him was split up and re-filed and other accused after trial were acquitted under Annexure-A1 judgment. Petitioner subsequently appeared in S.C.11/1993 and was released on bail. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case as against him now pending as S.C.11/1993 or in the alternative for a direction to CRMC 1783/09 2 the Assistant Sessions Judge to dispose the case within a time frame. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Finding that acquittal of the co-accused will not enable the absconding accused to seek quashing of the case as against him, learned counsel appearing for petitioner did not press the relief of quashing of the case. Learned counsel submitted that a direction be issued to the Sessions court to dispose the case expeditiously within a time frame. 4. Fact that the accused was absconding is not a ground not to dispose that case, when he appears. Considering the fact that the case is of 1993, Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kollam Is directed to dispose S.C.11/1993 expeditiously. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.