Kerala High Court
Shiju vs State Of Kerala on 20 August, 2014
Author: K.Ramakrishnan
Bench: K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/29TH SRAVANA, 1936
Crl.MC.No. 4297 of 2014 ()
---------------------------
SC 1671/2013 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, NEYYATTINKARA
CRIME NO. 689/2011 OF VELLARADA POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANDAPURAM
=====================
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
-----------------------------------
SHIJU, AGED 26 YEARS
S/O.PONNAYYAN, HOUSE NO.XVIII/570, BATHEL BHAVAN
PANCHAKUZHI, PANACHAMOODU, KUNNATHUKAL VILLAGE
NEYYATTINKARA.
BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER
RESPONDENT/STATE:
--------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P. MAYA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-08-2014, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
SD
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.,
---------------------------------------
Crl.MC. No. 4297 OF 2014
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2014
O R D E R
This is an application filed by the petitioner who is the accused in S.C. No. 1671/2013 pending before the Assistant Sessions Court, Neyyattinkara for speedy disposal of the case under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter 'the Code').
2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner has been arrayed as the sole accused in Crime No. 689/2011 of Vellarada Police Station alleging offence punishable under Sections 279, 308,353 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4(1)(A) read with Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals Act. After investigation, Annexure B final report was filed and the case has been taken on file as S.C.No. 1671/2013 of the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram and thereafter, it was made over to Assistant Sessions Court, Neyyattinkara for disposal and that case is now pending before that court. In the meantime, the petitioner has been shortlisted for the post of Driver in the Police Crl.M.C.. No. 4297/2014 2 Department and he has to appear before the Public Service Commission and during the selection process, if it is found that he was involved in a crime and criminal case is pending, that will affect the proceedings for getting the employment in the normal course and the request made by the petitioner's counsel before the court below for the early disposal of the case was declined by the court below. In the normal course, it will take longer period for the disposal of the case. Unless the case is disposed of expeditiously, he will be put to serious hardship. So, the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following reliefs:
"It is most humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the Assistant Sessions Court, Neyyattinkara to expedite the trial of S.C. No. 1671/2013 on its file and dispose it within a time limit as prescribed by this Honourable Court."
2. Considering the nature of relief claimed by the petitioner, this Court felt that this petition can be disposed of at the admission stage itself, after hearing counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and also after getting a report from the concerned court. Crl.M.C.. No. 4297/2014 3 Accordingly, a report has been called for from Assistant Sessions Court, Neyyattinkara. Assistant Sessions Judge sent a report which reads as follows:
"As per the Official Memorandum under reference No.1, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala had directed me to submit a report regarding the present stage of the case under reference number 2 and the time required for the disposal of that case.
In obedience to that order, I submit the following report for kind consideration.
The case under reference number 2 is based on a final report in the Vellarda Police Station Crime No. 689/11 alleging the offences punishable under Ss. 279, 308, 353 of IPC and under S. 4(1)(A) r/w 21(1) of Mines and Minerals Act. On commitment of the case, the Hon'ble Sessions Court, Thiruvanthapuram had taken cognizance of the offences and the case was made over to this court for trial and disposal.
The case was previously posted on 06.08.2014 for the appearance of the accused on issuing summons. On 06.08.2014 the accused had appeared through counsel and had filed an application for adjournment for his personal appearance. At present the case is posted for appearance of the accused for hearing on framing charge on 13.3.2015. This Court is facing a total pendency around 3800 cases including Civil and Sessions Cases and out of which 1636 are Sessions Cases. The Sessions Crl.M.C.. No. 4297/2014 4 Cases upto the year 2006 are targeted for the disposal of this year till April 2015. Normally this case would not come to he consideration of this Court for trial, unless and until the case has been included in the target. Priority are being given to the oldest cases. Prosecution has cited 7 witnesses as charge witnesses to be examined and had produced certain records and material objects to prove their case against the accused. The disposal of this case would be based on the prompt appearance of the witnesses. At present Sessions Cases are being scheduled till December 2014. If the Hon'ble High Court directs this court to dispose the case within a time bound manner, the case can be possibly disposed of within six months after framing of charges.
This is the present position and my suggestion regarding the time frame within which the case can be disposes of."
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been shortlisted for selection for the post of Driver in the Police Department and the pendency of the case will affect his prospect of getting employment. So, he wants to get the case disposed of at the earliest. In the normal course, it will take longer period for disposal of the case as the case is of the year Crl.M.C.. No. 4297/2014 5 2013. So, he has no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking relief of speedy trial and early disposal of the case.
5. Application was opposed by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that more old cases are pending before that court.
6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has been arrayed as accused in S.C. No. 1671/2013 pending before the Assistant Sessions Court, Neyyattinkara. The case is of the year 2013 and the charge has not been framed in the case and it is posted, as per the report of the Assistant Sessions Judge, to 13.03.2015 for hearing on the question of framing charge. It is also seen from the report that there are 1636 sessions cases pending before that court and the cases up to the year 2006 are now targeted for disposal of this year till 2015. It is also seen from the report that on the basis of the target fixed, cases have been scheduled for trial and unless a direction is given from this Court, there is no possibility of giving any priority of disposal of this case and if such priority is given, that will affect the work arrangement of the court as well. But, however, it is mentioned in the report that he will be able to dispose of the case if so directed, within six months after the framing of charges. Crl.M.C.. No. 4297/2014 6
7. It is true that Article 21 of the Constitution of India mandates speedy trial as a right of the accused who is facing criminal prosecution. It is also crystal clear that the mandate of the Constitution could not be fulfilled by the Subordinate courts on account of large pendency of the cases before each court and in spite of earnest attempts made by the Presiding Officers by doing hard work, they are not able to achieve this mandate. Further, by allowing jumping the queue, it will indirectly cause injustice to the persons waiting for justice from the courts in the queue for long time. But, at the same time, when the pendency of the case is likely to affect the future of the person who has been arrayed as accused, this Court will have to consider that aspect as well, as that is an opportunity for him to settle in his life as well. Since it may, in the normal course, take longer period, if peculiar circumstance has brought to the notice of the court, this Court has to reconsider this aspect of jumping queue and give some solace to the parties who come to the Court seeking for speedy disposal of the case on the basis of which his future itself is depending on them and getting an employment opportunity will be affected.
Crl.M.C.. No. 4297/2014 7
8. In this case, petitioner has been shortlisted for appointment as a Driver in the Police Department. Unless his case is disposed of, it is likely to loose his employment opportunity as well. So, considering the peculiar circumstance, this Court feels that the extraordinary power vested in this Court can be exercised for getting relief of speedy trial to the petitioner. So, the petition is disposed of as follows:
Assistant Sessions Judge, Neyyattinkara is directed to dispose of S.C. No. 1671/2013 pending before that court as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner applies for early hearing, the Assistant Sessions Judge is directed to consider that application and try to dispose of the case within the time limit fixed by this Court.
With the above directions and observations, this petition is disposed of. Office is directed to communicate the direction of this Court immediately.
Sd/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
sd
// TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE