AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 250 wordsThomas P. Joseph, J.—Learned Public Prosecutor takes notices for Respondents.
Petitioner is accused in C.C No. 2822 of 2003 of the Court of thelearned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam (for short, ''the ACJM, Ernakulam'') for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code. The prayer in this petition is for a direction to the learned ACJM, Ernakulam for early disposal of the case.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the case was filed in the year 2003, charge was framed on 18.08.2009 and since then, no witness has been examined. Learned Counsel submitted that in spite of coercive steps witnesses are not appearing and the case is being adjourned indefinitely. The difficulty of Petitioner is that he has got an employment in Malaysia but on account of pendency of the case, his passport could not be renewed. In the circumstances, Petitioner has sought for a direction.
Having regard to the circumstances stated and considering the fact that the case was filed in the year 2003, I am inclined to direct the learned ACJM, Ernakulam to dispose of the case, as expeditiously as possible.
Resultantly this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of directing learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam to dispose of C.C No. 2822 of 2003 of that Court, if there is no legal impediment in doing so, as expeditiously as possible having regard to the grievance of Petitioner and the difficulty he is suffering on account of pendency of the case.
