Back
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 :
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.
3. I have heard Sri. Rajit, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. C.S. Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Opposing the Crl. M.C., the learned Public Prosecutor submits that this Court has already directed the case to be disposed of by 25.03.2026. Again, 14 more witnesses have to be examined by the prosecution. After that, the questioning of the
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.
(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.
The right to a fair trial necessitates adequate legal representation; refusal to grant adjournment undermines this right, potentially resulting in miscarriage of justice.
The court emphasized the necessity of timely trial proceedings to prevent evidence tampering and directed Jail Authorities to ensure the presence of accused during trials.
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
