RAMESH.K Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 8 in S.C. No. 903/2022, pending before the Additional Sessions Court-I, Palakkad (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'). The case has arisen from Crime No.203/2022, registered by the Kasaba Police Station, Palakkad, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Ss. 120B, 109, 118, 324, 326, 307, 302, 465, 471 and 201 r/w Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 27(3) r/w Sec. 7(a) of the Arms Act.

(2.) The 1st petitioner and accused Nos.2 and 3 are under-trial prisoners. By Annexure-1 order, this Court had dismissed the bail application filed by the 9th accused, but directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial within six months from the date of framing of charge. As the trial could not be completed within the stipulated time, this Court has extended the time to conclude the trial until 25/3/2026, at the request of the Trial Court. The petitioners' counsel, a senior member of the Bar, has been under continuous treatment since 2017 for diabetic neuropathy and other ailments. Owing to his illness, the petitioners' counsel filed an application to postpone the trial for two months. The application was allowed, rescheduling the trial to 1/11/2025. On the scheduled day, although the petitioner's counsel reached the court premises, he was unable to climb the staircase to the first floor, where the Trial Court is situated. There is no elevator in the court complex. This difficulty was brought to the notice of the Trial Court and was cross-checked by the Special Public Prosecutor. Consequently, the Trial Court adjourned the trial and issued a stop memo to the remaining witnesses. The counsel for the accused Nos. 3 and 7 desire that the petitioner's counsel conduct the cross-examination of the remaining witnesses on their behalf. The prosecution has cited 167 witnesses, of whom 94 have been examined. The prosecution proposes to examine 14 more witnesses. Given the petitioners' counsel's familiarity with the case, his continued service is necessary for an effective and meaningful trial. Accordingly, the petitioners' counsel filed an application to adjourn the trial by a further period of three months. However, by the impugned Annexure 6 order, the Trial Court has rejected the said application. The impugned order is ex facie erroneous, improper and irregular.

(3.) I have heard Sri. Rajit, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. C.S. Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor.