The petitioner is the first accused facing trial in Crime No.5/2016 of Kurathikadu police station for offences punishable under Ss.3(a) read with Ss.4 & 5(1)(m)(n) and S.6 of POCSO Act, Ss.375 and 506(1) of I.P.C. and S.23 of Juvenile Justice Act.

2. The petitioner had approached this court earlier by filing Tr.P. (Crl) No.34/2018, raising an apprehension that he will not get fair trial due to the alleged prejudicial approach of the learned Judge. Few grievances regarding the procedure adopted in the course of trial were also raised. After perusing a report obtained from the above court, this court had felt that since trial had already commenced, it would be appropriate not to interfere in the course of trial. However, the need for ensuring a fair trial was highlighted by this court, while disposing of Transfer Petition (Crl.) No.34 of 2018, by order dated 13.4.2018. The accused and his lawyer were directed to maintain the decorum of court and to ensure that the trial progresses in a fair and peaceful manner. The court was also directed to ensure a free and fair trial to the petitioner and reminded that justice should not only be done, but seen to be done.

3. The first accused has approached this court again, raising further grievances regarding the procedure adopted. Though some of the earlier allegations were reiterated, it was alleged that, trial was not progressing in the proper manner. It was contended that, after the chief examination of the victim was over, the accused were directed to furnish the questionnaire of the cross examination, which was objected to. Still the court insisted and a written questionnaire was submitted in advance to the court. Copy was also furnished to the prosecutor. The case was adjourned after 10 days. According to the petitioner, this procedure was in total disregard to the principles of cross examination and will enable the prosecutor to prepare the witness to answer the questions.

4. A report was called from the Trial Court. All the earlier complaints about the conduct of the accused were reiterated by the court in detail. However, the report confirms that the court below had received questionnaire from the defence counsel on the date of examination in chief of the victim. This was justified by the court claiming that it was in accordance with S.33(2) of the POCSO Act. The judge proceeded to hold that, the questions to be put to the child during the chief examination or cross examination are to be furnished to the court by the Special Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, as the case may be, in writing. It was further reported that, such a procedure was being followed with a view to avoid future complaints that the question actually intended to be put by them was a different one and the court put it in a different manner to the child witness against the interest of the accused.

5. Since the other allegations and counter allegations were answered in the Transfer Petition No.34/2018, I am not inclined to go into those allegations now. However, in the light of the procedure adopted by the court below regarding the receipt of questionnaire in advance, purported to be under S.33(2) of POCSO Act, that matter needs a careful examination.

6. Section 33(2) of the Act provides that, the Special Public Prosecutor, or as the case may be, the counsel appearing for the accused shall, while recording the examination-in-chief, cross-examination or re-examination of the child, communicate the questions to be put to the child to the Special Court, which shall in turn, put those questions to the child. (emphasis supplied). This has to be read along with various precautions provided under the Act to ensure that the child is not exposed to offensive cross-examination. Under S.33(6) of the Act, the Special Court is imposed with an obligation to ensure that aggressive questioning or character assassination of the child is not permitted and dignity of the child is maintained at all times during the trial. E