Aswin vs State Of Kerala

Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J

The petitioner herein is the 1st accused in S.C.No.2001/2022 on the files of the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Kollam. In the aforesaid case, he is accused of having committed offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

This petition is filed being aggrieved by Annexure-3 order, dated 03.06.2023, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, as per which the request made by the petitioner to stop the trial scheduled to commence from 08.06.2023 was rejected.

I have heard Sri. Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. T.R. Renjith, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

Annexure-2 is the application filed on behalf of the 1st accused to stop the trial, which is scheduled on 08.06.2023. In Para Nos. 3 and 4 of the application, it has been stated thus by the applicant.

“3. It is respectfully submitted that Adv. Sasthamangalam S Ajithkumar is already engaged with another trial of SC No. 366/2022 at 8th Addl. District And Sessions Judge Ernakulam which is scheduled from 09.06.2023 to 26.06.2023 and SC No. 101/2019 Before Addl. Dist. And Sessions Judge-2 North Paravur which is Scheduled from 05.06.2023 to 15.06.2023. Hence the present schedule is not at all manageable to him.

If this Hon’ble court is able to adjourn the above case to any day during the 2nd week of July he can able to arrange his existing schedule and complete the trial of the above case. Hence it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to stop the trial now scheduled from 08.06.2023 and be further pleased to grant time till the 2nd week of July 2023.”

While rejecting the request, the learned Sessions Judge had noted that this Court, while disposing of the application for regular bail preferred by the accused Nos. 1 and 2, had directed the learned Sessions Judge to conclude the trial within an outer limit of six months by order dated 20.01.2023. As the said period is set to expire on 19.07.2023, it was felt that no adjournment, as prayed for, could be granted. The learned Sessions Judge also noted that other cases have been scheduled for trial in the month of July 2023, and therefore it is not expedient to allow the application and adjourned the trial.

Sri. Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar, the learned counsel, points out that in the case on hand, the Investigating Officer had filed a request to carry out further investigation, which was allowed by the court below. According to the learned counsel, the further investigation report submitted by the Police has not been filed along with the final report in the instant case. It is urged that in view of the directions issued by this Court in the Bail Application, the learned Sessions Judge is proceeding with the trial without furnishing the report submitted after conducting further investigation. It would not be possible for the accused to face the trial without obtaining the full records of the case, contends the learned counsel. He would assert that serious prejudice would be caused if the trial is proceeded with.

The submission advanced by the learned counsel is vehemently opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. He submits that none of these contentions were raised before the learned Sessions Judge, and if the same was raised, the learned Sessions Judge would have considered the same and would have passed appropriate orders.

Having considered the submissions advanced, and after going through the records, I am of the view that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting Annexure-2 application is not liable to be interfered with. At the same time, if the contention advanced by the learned counsel is correct and if the report submitted after further investigation is not supplied to the accused, serious prejudice would result. The mere fact that this Court had directed the Sessions court to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a period of six months is no reason to refrain from furnishing the prosecution records to the accused.

At this stage, it is submitted by Sri. Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that he shall file a fresh application before the learned Sessions Judge and requests that necessary directions be issued to consider the same on its merits.

In that view of the matter, while disposing of this petition, rejecting the challenge against Annexure-3 order, it is ordered that if a fresh application is submitted highlighting the grievance, the learned Sessions Judge shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.