Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 37365
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
KANNAN.S – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 3480 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: CIBI THOMAS, K.PRAVEEN KUMAR
For the Respondents: PP REKHA.S, RAKESH.A
Procedural irregularities in a trial do not invalidate the proceedings if the accused participated without objection and suffered no prejudice.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 218, 173(2), 313(1)(b) - Quashing of trial - Petitioner sought to quash the order dismissing the plea for separate trial, claiming procedural irregularities. Court held that the accused waived rights during trial participation and such irregularities do not vitiate the proceedings if no prejudice is shown. (Paras 4, 6)
(B) Procedural law - It is established that a procedural irregularity does not vitiate a trial unless it prejudices the rights of the accused, as observed by the Court in the case.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, the 1st accused in multiple cases, contested the trial process and sought to challenge the clubbing of charges. However, he participated without objection during the trial, and legislative provisions on criminal procedure were noted.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petitioner's claim of procedural irregularities after the trial had concluded, concurring with the dismissal of the petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial's procedural conduct warranted a separate hearing given the past participatory actions of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that participating without objection undermines claims of procedural misconduct, emphasizing adherence to procedural norms in criminal trials.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner contests trial process, citing procedural irregularities. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. respondent asserts petition lacks grounds post-trial. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 3. court affirms participation negates claims of procedural misconduct. (Para 6) |
A. BADHARUDEEN, J ============================
Crl. M.C. No. 3480 of 2025 ==============================
Dated 19th day of June, 2025 O R D E R This Criminal Miscellaneous case has been led by the 1st accused in C.C. No. 14 of 2015 on the les of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Kozhikode, to quash Annexure – AXIV order dated 12th March 2025 whereby the petition CMP No. 329 of 2024 led by the petitioner before the Special Judge under Section 218 of Code of Criminal Procedure .
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor representing the respondents.
3. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, 12 separate nal reports were led by the Deputy Superintendent under section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner were clubbed together, and the trial was conducted only in C.C. No. 14 of 2025. According to the petitioner, in other cases, photocopies of the depositions in C.C. No. 14 of 2015 were made part of the evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the procedure is irregular. Therefore, Annexure AXIV order would require interference by allowing separate trial.
4. Opposing this contention, it is pointed out by the learned public prosecutor that, in this matter, the petition is not maintainable after completion of the prosecution evidence and even closure of the defence evidence. It is submitted that the attempt was to stall trial, and delay the pronouncement of the judgment in the above cases. Therefore, order impugned is only to be con rmed.
5. In this case, the report of the Special Judge, Kozhikode, dated
17.06.2025, would show that, in this matter, altogether 12 cases viz. C.C. No. 14 of 2015 to C.C. No.25 of 2015, and all these cases prosecution evidence was closed as early on 15.04.2024. Thereafter, the accused were questioned under section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure , on 22.04.2024, with opportunity to adduce defence evidence. The crux of the report thereafter is as under: –
“Accused No. 1, Sri S. Kannan, filed defence witness lists as CMP Nos. 171/2024 to 182/2024, seeking to summon witnesses in 12 cases. However, all the petitions named only one individual, Mr. M.S. Sajeevan, a school teacher, as the defence witness. The petitions were allowed, and summons was issued to the said witness to appear on 27-04-2024, and the Summons was duly served. On 27-04-2024, the accused filed CMP 183/2024 seeking reissuance of Summons, which was allowed, and the witness was again summoned to appear on 29-04-2024. On that date, the witness filed an Absent Petition (CMP 185/2024) through counsel, which was dismissed, and coercive steps were ordered as the Court found the conduct of the witness was inappropriate for a School Teacher. Subsequently, the witness approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing Crl.MC 4041/2024, challenging the said coercive steps. The Hon'ble High Court initially stayed the proceedings, and the petition was eventually dismissed on 06-08-2024. Thereafter, the witness appeared before this Court. However, the accused was not ready to examine him on that day. The junior counsel for the accused submitted that they did not intend to proceed with the examination of the witness. The matter was then adjourned to 31-08-2024. Although the witness was again present on that date, the junior counsel, Adv. Sajila P.K., endorsed on all 12 CMPS (CMP 171/2024 to 182/2024) that the witness was given up and the petitions were not pressed. The learned counsel for the accused also filed a statement to the effect that the defence had abandoned the examination of the witness and had no further witnesses to examine. Accordingly, all the CMPs were dismissed
