Subith v. State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 Crl.MC.No. 7108 of 2015 () --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 1216/2010 of J.M.F.C.,PERUMBAVOOR DATED CRIME NO. 887/2010 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM PETITIONER(S):

--------------------------

1. SUBITH S/O.SIVASANKARAN NAIR, KIZHAKKETH HOUSE, MANNOOR KARA AIRAPURAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

2. KOMALAVALLY W/O.SIVASANKARAN NAIR, KIZHAKKETH HOUSE, MANNOOR KARA AIRAPURAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.M.V.JOY RESPONDENT(S):

---------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JUSTIN JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-12-` 2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: avk

Crl.MC.No. 7108 of 2015 () --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- ANNEXURE A. COPY OF THE ORDER SHEET IN CC 1216/10 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS 1, PERUMBAVOOR.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL --------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE avk

P.UBAID, J.

--------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.7108 of 2015 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of December, 2015

ORDER

The petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.1216/2010 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perumbavoor. Their grievance is that the trial court has not yet commenced trial despite the fact that it is an old case and the trial court has not been initiating coercive steps to ensure the presence of material witnesses. The petitioners seek orders for expeditious disposal of the case. In fact, what the petitioners seek is an administrative order on judicial side. Such orders cannot be passed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Under Section 482 Cr.P.C ,the High Court can pass only judicial orders within the limits prescribed thereunder. So this request is considered as one under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2.

As required by this Court, the learned Magistrate submitted a report regarding the present position there. It is reported that total pendency there is 12,086 cases. It is also reported that on some occasions

Crl.M.C.No.7108 of 2015 some attempts were made for conciliation and settlement of the dispute. But such attempts failed. Now the case stands posted to 8.1.2016. The learned Magistrate has reported that if the prosecution witnesses are promptly produced by the prosecution, the case could be disposed of within six months. The learned Magistrate cannot wait indefinitely with the hope that the prosecution will produce the witnesses. If any witness doesn't turn up or if the prosecution fails to produce the witnesses promptly, coercive measures will have to be taken by the Court to ensure the presence of witnesses. Attendance of witnesses cannot be at the mercy of the prosecution, or the Police officers. Anyway the report submitted by the learned counsel is is recorded and this Crl.M.C. is disposed of with direction to the learned Magistrate that earnest efforts shall be made to try and dispose of C.C.No.1216 of 2010 at the earliest, or if possible within 4 months from the date on which a copy of this order is received.

Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE