Crl.MC/3851/2007 of ANWAR SADATH Vs STATE OF KERALA on 28 December 2007

O R D E R

The petitioner who is the 11[th] accused in crime No.176/01of Meppadi Police Station against whom L.P.No.6/05 pendingbefore the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kalpetta approachedthis court by filing the present petition under Section 482Crl.P.C. with prayer to quash all the proceedings pendingagainst whom in L.P.No.6/2005 before the Chief JudicialMagistrate Court, Kalpetta. It is also prayed in the alternative toissue a necessary direction for the expeditious disposal of thecase against the petitioner.

2. The allegation against the petitioner and other accusedin the above crime is that at about 5 p.m. on 20.4.2001 theyattacked one Shaji and caused him injuries. The police afterinvestigation filed a final report. The accused who arrestedduring the investigation were committed for trial upon which theSession Court took cognizance and instituted S.C.No.374/04before the Addl. Sessions Court (Adhoc I) Kalpetta. That Sessionscase was disposed of by the Sessions court as per its Annexure I

judgment dated 31.5.2005. Subsequently, the second accusedwas also committed for trial and the same was disposed of byAnnexure II judgment dated 13.4.2007 by the Sessions Court,Kalpetta. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner submittedthat there is no meaning in compelling the petitioner to face thetrial and therefore all the proceedings pending against him maybe quashed.

3. Annexure III and Annexure IV depositions of Pws' 1and 2 respectively in S.C.No.374/04 are also produced alongwith this M.C. on the basis of which the counsel submitted thatthe petitioner has not been implicated by the defactocomplainant and other witnesses. Thus according to the counselfor the petitioner that there is no scope for conviction even if thepetitioner face the trial.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner aswell as the public prosecutor.

5. According to the counsel for the petitioner that thepetitioner was totally unaware of the incident and has notinvolved in the crime. The counsel submitted that the petitionerwas implicated falsely in the above crime. The counsel alsosubmitted that the petitioner came to know about the case onlywhen he came back to his native place from gulf country where he is employed. Now according to the counsel, the petitioner isunable to get his passport renewed and it is likely to loose hisemployment. It is to be noted that the petitioner who is the11[th]accused in the above crime is allegedly involved in attackingthe defacto complainant and committed serious offence includingSection 307 IPC. The other accused has already been undergonethe ordeal of trial though the trial ended in acquittal. Therefore,according to me, the petitioner has also to face the trial.

6. During the course of the argument, the learnedcounsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner isprepared to face the trial, considering his urgency to join for hisemployment and hence the court below may be directed toexpedite the trial. Annexure I and Annexure II would show thatseveral witnesses have to be examined and considering workload of the court below, it is not possible or proper to direct thetrial court to conclude the trial urgently. However, I am inclinedto dispose of this Criminal M.C. with a direction to the trial courtto start the trial within one month from the date on which thecase committed to it and to conclude the same as early aspossible, at any rate, within three months from the date offraming of the charge. I am constrained to fix such time limitconsidering long pendency of the matter and also considering the fact that the other two trial ended in acquittal as evidencedby Annexure I and II judgment.

7. Since the investigation in this case has already beencompleted and a final report has filed on the basis of which trialwere concluded and all other accused were acquitted as perAnnexure I and Annexure II judgment and also on the fact thatthe petitioner herein has not been arrested and not enlarged onbail previously, there is no need for sending him to either policecustody or judicial custody, on his surrendering before thecommittal court. Therefore, on appearing the petitioner beforethe committal court and on moving the application forwithdrawing the NBW if any pending against him and on movingan application for bail, the same shall be considered favourablyon the date of his appearance and filing of the petition itself.Accordingly the petitioner is directed to appear before thecommittal court within two weeks from today. In the event ofsuch surrender by the petitioner before the committal court, thecommittal court shall dispose of the application in the manner asobserved above and also take immediate steps to commit thecase forthwith for trial and the trial court is directed to expeditethe trial as aforesaid.

This Crl.M.C. is disposed of accordingly.

csl

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE