MANOJ Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is one among the 32 accused in Crime No.151 of 2005 of Chavakkad Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. PETITIONER was arrested and released on bail. At a time when petitioner was not available case against other accused was committed to the court of Sessions, Thrissur and is numbered as S.C.No.331 of 2008. That case is now pending in the court of learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge-II, Thrissur for trial. I am told that the case is coming up for trial on 24.01.2011. In the meantime, committal proceedings against petitioner was initiated by learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chavakkad in C.P.No.119 of 2010 and the case against petitioner also was committed to the court of Sessions, Thrissur. Grievance of petitioner is that since the alleged incident occurred at about 9.30 p.m. identification is an important aspect of the defence and, if petitioner alone stands trial, it is possible for the witnesses to point out him while standing in the dock as one of the assailants. PETITIONER wants the case against him to be tried along with S.C.No.331 of 2008. Learned counsel submitted that learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge has observed that since the case bundle relating to C.P.No.119 of 2010 has not reached that court, the court is unable to order a joint trial of the said case with S.C.No.331 of 2008. PETITIONER therefore seeks direction to the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge-II, Thrissur to try S.C.No.331 of 2008 along with case against the petitioner (which is already committed to the court of Sessions vide order in C.P.No.119 of 2010 of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chavakkad) and to direct learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chavakkad to transmit case file in C.P.No.119 of 2010 of that court to the court of learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge-II, Thrissur.

(2.) I do not think that it is necessary to issue any direction for joint trial of the two cases since the two cases arise from the same crime and the case against petitioner was split up and refiled only for the reason that he was not available when the case against others was committed. If the case against petitioner is also committed and brought up before learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, the court has to follow the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure in the light of the relevant decisions on the point bearing in mind that the cases arose from the same crime. There is also no reason why this Court should think that learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge will not consider this aspect of the matter. But, to facilitate that, the records relating to C.P.No.119 of 2010 has to be forwarded to the court of Sessions, Thrissur as early as possible. In the meantime, I am inclined to direct that trial of S.C.No.331 of 2008 will stand in abeyance for a period of one month from this day or till the case against petitioner also is made over to the court of learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, whichever is earlier. Resultantly this petition is disposed of directing learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chavakkad to transmit records in C.P.No.119 of 2010 of that court to the court of Sessions, Thrissur forthwith along with committal order (if it is not already sent). Trial of S.C.No.331 of 2008 of the court of learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge-II, Thrissur will stand adjourned to a day after one month from this day or till the case against petitioner is also made over to the court of learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, whichever is earlier. On receipt of records from the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chavakkad, learned Sessions Judge shall assign number to the case committed as per order in C.P.No.119 of 2010 and make over the case for trial to the court of learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge-II, Thrissur who shall pass appropriate orders in the matter of joint trial as law provides.