Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. Badharudeen, J.
Mohan Abraham – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By Public Prosecutor – Respondent
CRL.MC No. 10878 of 2025
Decided On : 02-12-2025
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The case emphasizes the importance of strict compliance with procedural rules, specifically Rule 19(4) of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 1982, prior to the commencement of trial proceedings (!) (!) .
The failure to comply with procedural requirements can lead to delays and stalling of trial proceedings, which can cause significant inconvenience to the court, prosecution, and witnesses (!) (!) .
The court highlighted the necessity for judicial directions to ensure adherence to procedural rules, including obtaining explicit endorsements from the accused or their counsel confirming compliance before scheduling witness examinations (!) (!) .
The court observed that non-compliance often results from deliberate or negligent delays, typically raised just before witness examination to stall proceedings, which is discouraged (!) (!) .
It was ordered that all criminal courts in the district must ensure compliance with Rule 19(4) before scheduling witness examinations, recording the compliance in the case proceedings, and obtaining necessary endorsements (!) .
The court directed the registry to communicate these directions to all relevant judicial officers and warned that non-compliance could lead to contempt proceedings (!) .
The case underscores the need for procedural integrity to facilitate timely justice and avoid unnecessary delays, emphasizing that procedural lapses should be addressed proactively by judicial officers (!) (!) .
The court also noted that delays in raising compliance issues are often strategic and can be used to unjustly stall trials, which should be discouraged through proper procedural adherence (!) .
The court reiterated its previous directives for ensuring compliance with procedural rules and stressed the importance of judicial oversight in maintaining procedural discipline (!) (!) .
Overall, the judgment underscores the critical role of procedural compliance in the administration of criminal justice and the responsibility of courts to enforce such compliance strictly to uphold the integrity and timeliness of trials.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. compliance with procedural requirements is essential before trial. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. delayed complaints can stall trial proceedings. (Para 3 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. judicial directions need adhering to avoid procedural disputes. (Para 4 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
ORDER :
A. Badharudeen, J.
This petition has been filed by the sole accused in C.C.No.11/2013 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thiruvananthapuram, arose out of Crime No.2/2009 of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram, seeking the following prayer:
“To direct the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Vigilance, Thiruvananthapuram to commence the trial only after complying the provisions of Rule 19(4) of Criminal Rules of Practice , 1982 by allowing this Crl MC in the interest of justice.”
2. As on 29.11.2025, as per the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court, the trial was kept in abeyance, though, in fact, the examination of witnesses was scheduled to start from 01.12.2025 onwards. Thus, because of the interim order passed by this Court, the trial was postponed. Now, as per the order of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, dated 01.12.2025, it was also found that there was non- compliance with Rule 19(4) of the Criminal Rules of Practice , 1982 (for short, ‘the C.R.P., 1982,’ hereinafter), and accordingly, an order was passed as under:
“1. The Investigating officer is directed to file a comprehensive list (A) specifying the details of witnesses examined during the investigation, the documents collected and also the material objects collected.
2. The Investigating officer is directed to file a comprehensive list (B) specifying the details of witnesses, the documents and also the material objects relied upon.
3. The Investigating officer is directed to file a comprehensive list (C) specifying the details of witnesses, the documents and also the material objects un-relied.”
3. In view of the above order, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition.
4. Permission granted and this petition is dismissed withdrawn.
5. However, it appears that the examination of the witnesses was scheduled from 01.12.2025, as per order dated 11.08.2025 and the petitioner filed Annexure I petition complaining non-compliance of Rule 19(4) of the C.R.P., 1982, only on 10.11.2025, after keeping silence for a pretty long time. Thus, the filing of this petition on the previous day of start of the examination of the witnesses would involve an element of stalling the trial. Anyhow, as of now, the examination of the witnesses scheduled was stopped and the learned Special Judge is awaiting compliance of the directions he had issued, as already extracted above.
6. Noting all these aspects, there shall be a direction to the learned Special Judge to effectuate compliance of Rule 19(4) of the C.R.P., 1982, within a period of two weeks from today, and schedule the case at the earliest, and complete the examination of the witnesses and trial within a period of two months on the expiry of two weeks, for complying Rule 19(4) of the C.R.P., 1982, after ensuring compliance of the same, without fail, and report compliance.
7. In the decision in Akhil Sabu v. State of Kerala reported in [ 2024 (5) KHC 49 ], this Court issued directions to all Criminal Courts in the District Judiciary to ensure compliance of Rule 19(4) of the Criminal Rules of Practice , Kerala, 1982, before start of trial, by directing the Public Prosecutors to give a specific posting for the said compliance, and to start the trial only after ensuring compliance with the mandate of Rule 19(4) of the C.R.P., 1982, without fail.
8. In the instant case, going by the order passed, as extracted hereinabove, it is discernible that the learned Special Judge failed to comply with the directions issued by this Court in Akhil Sabu’s case (supra) in the strict sense and, accordingly, he was compelled to pass an order directing compliance o
Compliance with procedural rules before trial commencement is crucial to ensure timely justice and prevent unjust delays.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of compliance with Rule 19(4) of the Rules, 1982, which mandates the supply of statements of witnesses recorded and a list of doc....
Compliance with trial rules necessary for proper scheduling of cases.
Compliance with procedural mandates set by Rule 19(4) of Criminal Rules of Practice is essential before trial scheduling.
Compliance with procedural rules is essential for a fair trial; document provision must precede witness cross-examination.
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, requiring trial courts to avoid unnecessary adjournments and ensure timely witness examination.
Courts direct expeditious disposal of pending trials, enforcing prior time-bound orders for old cases.
(1) Adjournment – Impediment in speedy trial – Legislature itself has frowned at granting adjournment on flimsy grounds – Even in cases where accused had been enlarged on bail right to a speedy trial....
Compliance with documentation rules in criminal proceedings is essential for fair trial rights.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
