Important Points:
In a criminal prosecution must be understood from the side of the accused as well as the prosecution. The accused persons should get full opportunity to defend the case projected against them- They are permitted in law to challenge the prosecution case by raising all lawful grounds-The prosecution is also entitled to have an opportunity to place all the relevant materials before the court in order to help it to arrive at a correct conclusion-The society at large is also an ultimate beneficiary of a fair trial.

JUDGMENT :

A. HARIPRASAD, J.

1. In this appeal against conviction, the main allegation raised is that the trial court negated valuable rights of the appellants by denying an opportunity to argue the case.

2. Heard learned senior counsel for the appellants and learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

3. Accused 1 to 9 in Sessions Case No.239 of 2017 before the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Kollam are in appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on them by the learned trial Judge under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, “IPC”). Learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the appellants for offences under Sections 120B and 201 IPC.

4. At the time of admission of the appeal, learned senior counsel contended that the trial court flouted not only the provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “Cr.P.C.”), but also the sublime principles of natural justice. According to him, the trial court entered conviction without affording an opportunity to the appellants for being heard. In the appeal memorandum, detailed averments are made regarding various posting dates of the case and events transpired on each date. Learned senior counsel argued that the court below was hostile to the appellants during the trial itself. It did not even afford an opportunity of a fair trial. Since the appellants raised serious allegations against the procedure adopted by the trial court and also about non-adherence to the principles of natural justice, we carefully perused the impugned judgment and the order sheet in the above Sessions Case, maintained by the trial court, which is forwarded by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kollam. On seeing that the contentions of the appellants are prima facie acceptable, on 20.02.2020 we passed an order in Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2020 suspending the sentence of appellants for a period of two weeks and releasing them on interim bail with conditions. On 20.02.2020 itself we passed another order which reads as follows:

“2. We hereby direct the Registrar (Subordinate Judiciary) to forward a copy of the appeal memorandum along with the impugned judgment and annexures to the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV who passed the order of conviction on 01.02.2020 in Sessions Case No.239 of 2017 before the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Kollam, wherever he works at present. Learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed to explain why action shall not be taken against him for disobeying the orders passed by this Court in Tr.P.(Crl.) No.8 of 2020 dated 30.01.2020. The explanation shall be submitted by the officer concerned before this Court on or before 03.03.2020. We also direct the Registrar (Subordinate Judiciary) to produce orders regarding the relief of the said officer from the post of Additional Sessions Judge -IV, Kollam to take up an assignment as Cooperative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram.

After retaining copies, original of the proceeding papers shall be returned to the lower court."

5. In compliance with the above direction, learned Additional Sessions Judge, who convicted the appellants and who has gone on deputation as Presiding Officer, Kerala Co-operative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, submitted an explanation on 02.03.2020. In his explanation, all the allegations in the appeal memorandum relating to the procedural irregularity and personal bias are specifically denied. He has also submitted that he did not violate any directions passed by this Court. It is the version that his conscience instructed him that he himself should dispose of the case as he had recorded the evidence. We do not intend to judge the persona of any judicial officer and also we do not want to cast any aspersion regarding the conduct of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. There is no material available to think that the violation of procedure, if any established, was done by the judicial officer with any malice or ill-will. However, we are duty bound to