IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2008 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4025 of 2008() ------------------------- CRL.M.P.NO.567/08 IN SC.596/2005 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SOMAN, S/O. KRISHNAN, THARAYASSERY VEEDU, MUTTAR MURI, MUTTAR VILLAGE. 2. SALIM KUMAR @ DARLY, S/O. PADMANABHAN, ERAVASSERY VEEDU, MUTTAR MURI, MUTTAR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.M.SUNILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4025 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2008 ORDER Petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for the offences under the Kerala Abkari Act. Trial had commenced. The petitioners did not get ready to cross examine the witnesses who were summoned by the prosecution. Pws 1 and 2, both public officials were present. PW1 is a serving official, whereas PW2 is a retired police official. The court below by the impugned order granted adjournment as a last chance on condition that the petitioners remit an amount of Rs.3,000/- each as cost for Pws 1 and 2. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the amount ordered is excessive. Report of the learned Sessions Judge was called for. The learned Sessions Judge has narrated the circumstance under which the cost was allowed to be paid. The actual cost payable to the witnesses will be only Rs.490/-, it is reported. A higher amount of cost was directed to be paid because of the contumacious conduct on the part of the petitioners. The learned Sessions Judge in the report has given details of the sequence of events in the case. It is seen that on earlier occasions, cross examination stood adjourned on condition that cost is paid. Crl.M.C. No.4025 of 2008 2 3. The petitioners contend that the quantum fixed is excessive. In the light of the undisputed fact that actual cost payable to Pws 1 and 2 would be only Rs.490/-, it is submitted that the direction to pay a total amount of Rs.6,000/- (Rs.3,000/- to each witness) is totally unjustified. 4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. The sequence of events and sufferings by the witnesses do persuade me to hold that the court below has committed no error in directing payment of cost of more amount than what was strictly admissible as bata to the witnesses. I am satisfied that the interests of justice will be served eminently by reducing the cost from Rs.6,000/- in all to Rs.3,000/- in all. Out of the said amount, which is already in deposit, an amount of Rs.1,000/- shall be paid to PW2 in addition to bata that is payable to him. So far as PW1 is concerned, the bata admissible as per law shall be paid. The balance amount in the amount of Rs.3,000/- already deposited shall be reckoned as cost payable to the State. 5. This Crl.M.C. is in these circumstances allowed to the above extent. The cost amount is reduced from Rs.6,000/- in all to Rs.3,000/- in all. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-