IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS
Ramesh K., S/o. Late Kandamuthan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala, Ernakulam – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. trial status and adjournment due to counsel's illness. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the trial adjournment and witness examination. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. balancing the right to a speedy trial and the practicality of adjournments due to counsel's health. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. final judicial decision on the trial's deferment and logistics. (Para 8) |
ORDER :
C.S. DIAS, J.
The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 8 in S.C. No. 903/2022, pending before the Additional Sessions Court-I, Palakkad (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’). The case has arisen from Crime No.203/2022, registered by the Kasaba Police Station, Palakkad, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 109, 118, 324, 326, 307, 302, 465, 471 and 201 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27(3) r/w Section 7(a) of the Arms Act.
2. The 1st petitioner and accused Nos.2 and 3 are under-trial prisoners. By Annexure-1 order, this Court had dismissed the bail application filed by the 9th accused, but directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial within six months from the date of framing of charge. As the trial could not be completed within the stipulated time, this Court has ext
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 mandates that trials should not be unduly delayed, balancing procedural fairness with judicial efficiency.
The court established that both prosecution and defense must be heard before trial scheduling, ensuring the accused's right to a fair trial and legal representation.
Accused have a right to represent themselves through a pleader but cannot cross-examine witnesses using non-advocates without court permission, ensuring procedural integrity.
The court reinforces the necessity of compassionate considerations in legal proceedings, allowing adjournments in light of genuine emergencies.
High Court inherent powers under BNSS Section 528 exercisable sparingly post-revision only for grave miscarriage of justice; trial court justified closing defence evidence after accused's repeated fa....
In summons trials, closing complainant's evidence justified for repeated non-appearance despite warnings and no exemption application; routine adjournments not permissible, courts must enforce day-to....
(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....
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and adequate communication between undertrial prisoners and their lawyers is essential to uphold justice.
The court reinforced that adjournments in criminal trials should be granted sparingly and only for valid reasons, emphasizing the importance of timely cross-examination.
The right to cross-examine witnesses must be exercised promptly, and adjournments should only be granted for compelling reasons to ensure a fair trial.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.