Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This original petition is filed by the accused in C.C.Nos.4/2008, 268/2008 and 408/2008 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal for early disposal of the cases under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner has been arrayed as the 5th accused in C.C.No.408/2008 and C.C.No.4/2008 and 6th accused in C.C.No.268/2008 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal. The offences alleged against the petitioner and the other accused are one punishable under Sections 454, 461, 380, 411 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. During the crime stage, in all those cases, the petitioner obtained bail. But later on account of his employment, he had to go to Doha in Gulf country. After filing the final report, he could not appear and participate in the trial of the case. So the learned Magistrate has issued non bailable warrant against the petitioner and that is pending. He has to come from Doha to face the trial and he has to go back by 7.10.2014, otherwise he will lose his employment. So those cases will have to be disposed of on or before 3.10.20143. So that he can go back to Doha and pursue his employment. So, the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following reliefs:

Report No.73115 Dated 4.8.2014 "With reference to the above information, most respectfully submitting the present stage of CC 268/2008 in Crime No.585/2007 of Attingal police Station on the file of this Court.
This case stands charged by the Attingal police in Crime No.585/2007 alleging offences u/s. 454, 461, 384 and 34 IPC. The accused persons are 6 in numbers. This case was taken on file as CC 268/2008. Summons issued to accused and posted for their appearance to 27.6.2008. The same day case was adjourned by notification to 20.8.2011. On 20.8.2011 summons served to A4 and he was not present. Hence, issued NBW to him. Repeated summons to others on 8.5.2012. A1 produced. A3 not produced. Charge u/s.454, 461, 384 and 34 IPC..A1 pleaded not guilty. Summons issued to CW1 to 3. Posted for evidence to 18.6.2012. On 2.7.2012 Accused not produced. CW1-2 present examined PW1 and 2. Exts.P1-P2 were marked. MO1 to 17 marked.

Prosecution has cited 11 witnesses in this case. Already 6 witnesses were examined.

These bing the facts, I most respectfully submitted that I will try my level best to dispose the case within 6 months. I humbly requested that sufficient time maya be allowed in this regard."

Report No.73116 dated 4.8.2014 "With reference to the above information, most respectfully submitting the present stage of CC 408/08 in crime No.550/2007 of Attingal Police Station on the file of this Courts This case stands charged by the S.I. Of Police, Attingal in crime No.550/2007 alleging offences u/s. 454, 461,380, 411 and 34 IPC. The accused persons arrayed in this case are 5 in numbers. Final report filed, on 28.3.2008 and the case was taken on file as CC 408/08. Summons issued to all and posted for their appearance in 23.7.08. On 23.7.08, it is reported that summons served to all except A1 & 4. But they were not present. Hence, bailable warrant to A2,A3 & A5 issued, repeat summons to A1 & A4 and case adjourned to 28.1.09. On 3.11.11 production warrant issued to A3 through Superintendent, central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram. Subsequently on 7..12.11 A3 produced as per production warrant for the first time. On 4..3.13 accused 3 is reported in jail, A3 applied. Hence production warrant issued to A1 and NBW to others repeated. On 1.4.13 A1 produced. Charge framed u/s 454, 461 and 380 r/w S.34 IPC. He pleaded not guilty. Hence, summons issued to CW1-3, A3 applied & petition dismissed. NBW issued to A2-4 and adjourned to 15.4.13. On 29.4.13, A1 produced, A3 reported in custody, and production warrant issued for him. NBW repeated to others. On 10.6.2013, A1 & 3 produced. Heard. Charge u/s 454,461,380,411 and 34 IPC framed against A3. He also pleaded not guilty. NBW repeated to others. A3 represented by counsel. Direction was given to the effect that A3 shall ve produced as and when his presence is specifically required. A3 is a disabled person. Hence, this direction. A3 send back to jail. On 8.7.13, A3 took bail and applied for recalling warrant. Petition allowed and repeat NBW to others. On 23.9.13 A1 produced . A3 absent. No representation. Hence issued NBW to A3, NBW to others also repeated. On 21.10.13 A1 produced. It is reported that A2 to 5 are absconding. Hence, they are split up. Issued summons to CW1, adjourned to 4..11.13. On that day, A1 not produced. CW1 present. APP prays for evidence. Since the Mos are on interim custody, hence CW1 bound over. Direction was given to CW1 to produce the same. Case adjourned to 18.11.13. A1 not produced. CW1 present. Mos not produced. CW1 bound over, adjourned to 2.12.13. On 2.12.13 A1 not produced. CW1 present, examined as PW1. Ext.P1 & P2 marked. Identified MO1 to 5 . Summons issued to CW2. On 3.12.13 summons issued to CW3 and 4. Subsequently CW3 was given up by the APP and summons issued to CW4. On 24.2.14 it is reported that A3 is no more. From 19.4.14 onwards, there was no sittings in this Court since the Presiding Officer was promoted and transferred to Neyyattinkiara as Sub Judge, the Judicial I Class Magistrate-II, Attingal was holding charge. On each posting dates, accused was produced on that Court only for the purpose of remand extension, The later proceeding of this case as resumed by me after assuming charge on 2.6.14. On 26.6.14, CW2 & 3 were given up by APP. Case posted for verification of back records. On 18.7.14 case advanced on application and A1 took bail. A3's death certificate produced. Now the case stands posted to 25.9.14. Summons issued to CW4 and 5.

6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that he himself was responsible for the delay and he is not entitled to get the discretion of this Court.

7. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has been arrayed as the 5th accused in Crime Nos.509/2007 and 550/2007 of Attingal Police station and 6th accused in Crime No.585/2007 of Attingal police station. It is also an admitted fact that during the crime stage he was released on bail. But, later when the final reports were filed, he did not appear. It is also seen from the respective reports submitted by the learned Magistrate that in some cases against the petitioner, the case has been split up and in some cases, evidence has been started and it is being proceeded with in respect of persons, who have appeared before that court. So, it is clear from the conduct of the petitioner that he himself was responsible for the delay and if he had participated along with others, the cases could have been proceeded without delay. Further, since the case against some of the accused persons have already been started, it is difficult for the Magistrate to proceed with the case of the petitioner alone with those persons and the case against him will have to be separately dealt with. So, in fact, he is not entitled for the relief of speedy trial as claimed by him within a short period in order to suit his convenience to go back to pursue his employment as he himself was responsible for the delay. However, considering the fact that Constitution of India mandates right of speedy trial for the accused and if persons accused of the same, the court will have to be considered that aspect. But, at the same time, if the period claimed by the petitioner is too short, that cannot be considered as it will cause unnecessary burden on the presiding officers of the subordinates courts, who are working hard to dispose of old cases by scheduling the same in a convenient manner and if directions were given to dispose of cases of later years within short periods, that will only affect their working arrangements and cause hardship to the persons, who are earnestly contesting the cases without causing any delay in disposal of the cases on their part and co-operate with the disposal of the cases. But, the learned Magistrate has sought for only six months time for disposal of the cases in the reports. So considering that, this Court feels that the petition can be disposed of accepting the reports of the learned Magistrate as follows: