IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 517 of 2008() ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22/01/2008 IN CRMP. 51 /2008 IN SC.247/2004 of ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: 1ST ACCUSED --------------------------------------------- MADHUSOODANAN, S/O. KUNJU PILLAI, BHARATHI MANDIRAM, THEKKEKARA, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR SRI.M.VIJESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. M.S. BREEZE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.517 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th day of February, 2008 ORDER The petitioner who is the 1st accused in S.C.No.247 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Alappuzha challenges Annexure II order dated 22.01.08 passed by the trial court rejecting the petitioner's application to adjourn the examination of the witnesses. 2. This Court had called for a report from the trial court. As per letter dated 5/2/08 what is discernible is the following:- There are altogether 17 accused persons who had been charge sheeted by the Kayamkulam police in Crime No.568/2002 for offences punishable under sections 143,147,148,452,427,307 read with 149 IPC. Accused Nos.2,6,12 and 15 are stated to be absconding. On 5.9.07, the court below framed the charge against the accused who were present. Thereafter, the case was scheduled for examination of the prosecution witnesses from 19.1.08 onwards. 19.01.08 was already a holiday due to Muharam. The very fact that the trial of the case had to be adjourned on that day shows the total non-application of mind by all the concerned, including the court, while scheduling the case for trial. On the adjourned dates also some prosecution Crl.M.C.No. 517 of 2008 2 witnesses were present and some were absent. But the fact remains that the most important prosecution witnesses namely CW1 and CW2 who are allegedly the injured in the case, have not been examined so far, the reason being that both of them are employed abroad. It is stated that the material objects in the case have not reached the trial court so far and the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory is also not before the court. Under these circumstances, I fail to see, as to why the learned Judge showed undue haste in proceeding with the trial. Merely because this case was one of the targeted cases for the trial judge, the trial cannot be hurried in the manner in which it was done by the learned Judge. Further trial of the case shall be continued only after procuring the presence of CW1 and CW2 unless the prosecutor decides to dispense with them for valid reasons. Similarly, without getting the material objects and the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, the court below shall not resume the trial, which now stands adjourned to 16.02.08 or so. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj