ABDUL KAREEM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein stands arrayed as the accused in Crime No.5190/2014 of Perumbavoor Police Station for offences punishable under sections 7 read with section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012. In that case, the victim was examined as PW1. Since the counsel for the petitioner herein was absent, the victim was not cross examined. Thereafter, an application for recalling the witness was filed under section 311 Cr.P.C., 1973 It was allowed by the court below subject to payment of costs. Summons was issued to the witness and posted to 16.2.2018. On that day, PW1 was present and the counsel for the accused was absent. It is stated that the witness waited till 4.30 p.m., and in the absence of cross examination by the learned counsel for the accused evidence of PW1 was closed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another application as CMP.No.578/2018, which was dismissed by the court below narrating the entire sequence of events. This was assailed before this court in Crl.M.C.No.1693/2018.

(2.) Considering the entire facts, the above Crl.M.C was allowed granting one more opportunity to the petitioner herein to cross examine PW1, on payment of Rs. 3000/-. It was specifically directed that on the next posting date both the petitioner and the counsel shall be present and thereupon, the court below shall issue summons to the witness and fix the date for cross examination. It was further directed that the petitioner and the counsel shall be present on the date of evidence and pay cost of Rs. 3000/- to PW1. It was further directed that in the event of non compliance of the above condition, the original order would stand revived.

(3.) The petitioner herein has approached this court again contending that summons was issued to the witness, and the case stood posted to 17.4.2018. However, the petitioner herein was absent on that day. His absence was explained by the petitioner through the counsel by stating that on 16.3.2018 due to ischemic stroke he was admitted in the hospital in a serious condition. An application was filed for adjournment of the case. The above Crl.M.P was taken up by the court below on 25.4.2018 and dismissed by Annexure-A2 order, holding that time was fixed by this court and hence the learned Sessions Judge could not extend the time fixed by the Hon'ble High Court. Request was hence rejected. That order has resulted in the present Crl.M.C.